Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Military Bases

Albert Owen: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of military bases in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Defence. There is a strong defence presence in Wales, which will be strengthened by the St. Athan defence training project.

Albert Owen: RAF Valley is an integral part of the Anglesey community, has been so for over 60 years, and is a major contributor to the region. The recent positive announcement by the Ministry of Defence on locating the search and rescue headquarters and the new Hawk integrated operational support contract at Valley is creditable and gives confidence to both the civilian and military work force. Does he agree, however, that the academy at St. Athan offers further potential for RAF Valley to benefit and to broaden its skills base, and that a party with the aim of independence would jeopardise that?

Peter Hain: I agree very much with my hon. Friend that RAF Valley has enormous potential, does good work and has potential linkages across Wales, including with the defence training project. That project, which is the biggest such public investment project in living memory—if not ever—will bring unparalleled investment in Wales, with over 5,000 jobs, an additional 1,500 jobs in construction and about £16 billion of investment, all of which is a result of the strong partnership between Westminster and a Welsh Assembly Government—a partnership that would be put at risk by a nationalist-Tory alliance in the Welsh Assembly Government if they won power.

Elfyn Llwyd: Obviously, the Secretary of State has changed the order: it is now nationalist-Tory, not Tory-nationalist; in any event, it is nonsense, as it was last week. May I set the record straight? Plaid Cymru was fully supportive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency bid from day one, we still are, and I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) says: the development is important to Wales and we could be world leaders in that kind of technology. At no stage have I expressed a contrary view, except to say that I would have preferred the jobs to have stayed in the public sector.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman mentions the point, I do not mind whether the alliance is nationalist-Tory or Tory-nationalist; it would still put the Tories in power in Wales, and they have not been in power at a serious level of government anywhere in the United Kingdom for a long time. In respect of the policy of defence investment, why did his party president, Dafydd Iwan, call for the disbanding—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is answering the questions, not asking them.

Si�n Simon: Given the Government's massive investment in defence training, do not the armed services provide an excellent career for youngsters throughout Wales and across the United Kingdom? In that case, how does the Secretary of State answer those in Wales who call for Army recruitment to be banned in schools?

Peter Hain: I did notice that one Plaid Cymru Assembly Member was calling for the Army to be banned from recruiting in schools, which is a crazy policy, like all Plaid Cymru's other crazy policies that are designed to separate Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom, which would be a disastrous policy if it formed part of a Welsh Assembly Government's future objectives.

David Jones: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen), the Secretary of State will be aware that the air service to be launched next week linking Cardiff airport with RAF Valley is to be subsidised by the Welsh Assembly Government to the tune of 800,000 per annum, which equates to a subsidy of more than 170 per passenger, per return flight, if those flights are fully occupied. Does he consider that such a level of subsidy is good value for taxpayers' money? When does he anticipate that the service will be able to stand on its own feet financially?

Albert Owen: It is investment.

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) says from a sedentary position, the project is an investment in improved north-south transport links, which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman, as a north Wales MP, would welcome. I would have thought that he would say that businesses and individuals in north Wales who need to travel to and from Cardiff, which can take as long as five hours by car and a similar amount of time by train, should have the advantage of that service, which will bring extra investment to north Wales and Anglesey. He should be backing it, not attacking it.

Regulatory Burden

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has for encouraging a reduction in the burden of central Government legislation on Welsh business.

Nick Ainger: The Government are wholeheartedly committed to cutting the regulatory burden on all businesses and are currently undertaking one of the most radical reform agendas in the world.

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that recent surveys of Welsh business reveal overwhelming opposition to the Budget proposals to increase the rate of the small firms corporation tax? Will he pledge to do all that he can to resist those anti-business Euro-directives, particularly the working time directive, from which the UK had an opt-out, and the agency workers directive, both of which would do untold damage to Welsh tourism?

Nick Ainger: The Government have reduced the regulatory burden on business arising, for example, from Department of Trade and Industry regulations, by more than 1 billion. Some 900,000 companies are now exempt from audit requirements on their accounts. The hon. Gentleman refers to various surveys, and the CBI survey shows that manufacturers in Wales have received the highest surge in orders for more than a decade, and that Welsh firms are experiencing much stronger order and output growth than the UK as a whole. The latest figures show that new VAT registrations for businesses in Wales are up significantly. Moreover, 130,000 jobs have been created since 1997.
	All those facts demonstrate that the Government are extremely successful in dealing with these matters. Small businesses are growing substantially in Wales, and are being created on a regular basis. That shows that we have the right policies, which could only be put at risk if we ended up with some sort of rag-bag coalition.

Alun Michael: Will my hon. Friend remind Conservative Members that it was a Conservative Government who devastated business and industry in Wales, although siren voices suggested that measures such as the minimum wage would devastate business and industry rather than introducing fairness? Will he restate this Government's policy of introducing measures from European directives properly, not gold-plating them but ensuring that there is fairness in industry for all, including business?

Nick Ainger: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. I know from the hard work that he did in ensuring the passage of legislation to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses that he is an expert in the field. The facts are clear: businesses in Wales are growing and are being created faster than ever before, and all the surveys indicate that the Government's regime is working.
	Of course, we will resist any attempts to gold-plate European regulation. We will continue with the formulathe partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Labour Government here in Westminsterwhich has proved so successful, putting 138,000 more people in work than was the case 10 years ago.

Paul Flynn: Is not the misery-mongering from Norfolk mocked by the reality of thriving private industry in Wales? In Newport alone we have benefited from a huge amount of investment, resulting in thousands of new jobs in EADS, Yellow Pages, International Rectifier and the Quinn Group. Is that not largely due to the strength of the partnership between the Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly and the Labour-controlled Government, which would be put at risk if it fell into the instability of an Assembly controlled

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Nick Ainger: Surprisingly, I agree, yet again, with my hon. Friend. What he says is true, although that success is happening not just in Newport, but in my constituency: we now have record levels of employment where we used to have record levels of unemployment. Indeed, it is true throughout Wales. Ibsen Biopharm has announced an investment of more than 39 million in a pharmaceutical plant in Wrexham, and the Amazon investment was announced only last month.
	Industry recognises that Wales is a good place in which to invest. We are seeing existing industries growing and new industries being created, becauseas my hon. Friend saysof the wonderful partnership between Westminster and Cardiff.

Public Sector Employment

Andrew Rosindell: How many of the jobs created in Wales since 1997 have been in the public and publicly funded sectors.

Peter Hain: Employment in Wales is at historically high levels, with 138,000 more people in employment in Wales since 1997. The increase in private sector employment in Wales has been three and a half times the increase in public sector employment.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will know that Wales has a much higher proportion of public sector workers than the rest of the United Kingdom, and that unemployment there is rising. How does he account for that, and what will he tell voters in Wales tomorrow? Is it not the case that Labour is not working for those who are unemployed in Wales?

Peter Hain: Unemployment is pretty stable, and employment continues to rise. Significantly, economic inactivity levelswhich have been a curse of the Welsh economyhave been falling, especially in valley areas that have received the objective 1 funding delivered not by the last Tory Government, but by a Labour Government.
	The hon. Gentleman should look at the latest CBI report, which shows that manufacturers in Wales have received the highest surge in order levels for more than a decade. Entrepreneurship in Wales is at an all-time high, states a report in  The Sunday Times. Many businesses are doing well, and many people are starting up businesses in all areas of the economy in Wales. It is a great place to do business. All of that would be put at risk if there were an unholy alliance between the nationalists and the Tories in a Welsh Assembly coalition Government.

Andrew Miller: The fastest growing part of the UK economy is in the Deeside hubthe axis between north-east Wales, Chester and Ellesmere Port. As my right hon. Friend knows, that has occurred only because of the partnerships that have been created across the border. The recent fantastic announcement about Vauxhall Motors has protected the jobs of hundreds of people living in north-east Wales.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right: the integration of the north-east Wales economy with nearby areas again underlines how absurd is the nationalist policy of separatism in Scotland or Wales or any part of the United Kingdom. It is a crazy policy for jobs and it would put at risk all the success

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Hywel Williams: The official figures show that 48,000 manufacturing jobs in Wales have been lost in 10 years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will work with the Government in Cardiff, of whatever political complexion, to reverse this disastrous decline?

Peter Hain: Obviously, as Secretary of State it is my duty to work with any Government in Wales of whatever political complexion, but it is important that I and my Labour predecessors have been able to work with a Labour Welsh Assembly Government that has provided unparalleled success in the economy, including in manufacturingnew manufacturers continue to be attracted to come to Wales and, as I have said, the CBI reports the best prospects for manufacturing for a long time. All of that would be put at risk if we were to have an unstable rag-bag coalition of the alternative parties, especially the nationalists joining with the Tories in an unholy alliance, which would put Wales' success at risk.

Cheryl Gillan: If the Secretary of State has been so successful in working with the Labour Welsh Assembly Government, will he explain what Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs workers in Pembrokeshire will do when their jobs are axed, in a cynically timed decision, after these elections? Will he also explain why half the population in Wales cannot find an NHS dentist, and what NHS nurses and doctors will do when Labour closes hospitals, such as Withybush, Llandudno and Bronglais?

Peter Hain: No hospital closures are planned of that kind. This is yet again Tory scaremongeringthe Tories are joining with their friends the nationalists in doing that. What about the 8,000 more nurses that there are in Wales since the last election? What about the 500 more consultants in hospitals? What about the 1,700 extra teachers and the 5,700 extra school support staff and the 1,000 extra police officers?  [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says, What about waiting times? Waiting times have plummeted since 1997, when we came to power and found the terrible Tory inheritance. The public sector in Wales is doing well and it will continue to improve. The Tory alternative is massive public spending cuts: 21 billion in total, 1 billion of which will fall on the Welsh budget.

Antisocial Behaviour

Don Touhig: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on tackling antisocial behaviour in Wales.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on issues affecting Wales. We have introduced tougher antisocial behaviour measures than any previous Administration, which are designed to stamp out this blight on our communities.

Don Touhig: The Penllwyn community partnership in my constituency has worked well with councillors and the police to combat the menace of antisocial behaviour. Far from being short term, costly and counter-productive, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, using legislation passed by this Government we have ensured that communities are empowered to tackle this nuisance. What measures are planned to ensure that people living in communities such as the Penllwyn will continue to be given help and support in order to improve the quality of life in their neighbourhoods?

Peter Hain: I applaud what has been taking place in my right hon. Friend's constituency and I know that he has taken a close interest in that. I assure him that if Labour is returned to power at Cardiff bay in the Assembly elections, we will introduce antisocial behaviour units in every local authority area, increase investment in the safer and stronger communities fund and increase fines for littering, graffiti and fly-tipping, because all of those activities are a blight on a our local neighbourhoods. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, such measures are often opposed by the Conservatives, the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, they should, perhaps, join together and form a Government if they get the chance, as they have been continuously working together in opposition to undercut and undermine our Welsh Labour Government's achievements.

Simon Burns: When the Secretary of State has discussed with the Home Secretary the difficult issue of antisocial behaviour, has he raised a problem in Wales that is equally a problem in England? Families that suffer antisocial behaviour from neighbours feel that the time scale for resolving the problem and the note-keeping and incident recording that they have to do is so extensive that it makes their lives unacceptably awful for too long. Can something be done to speed up the process, while maintaining a sense of justice in the system?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious point, and we must make sure that we monitor this issue and chase up on it. He is right: a neighbour from hell is a hellish experience. I saw that for myself at Llandudno Junction, for example, a few months ago, where a particular household literally terrorised the local community to the point where people did not want to live in their own homes. Through tough antisocial behaviour legislation and the local council working with the police, action was taken, the family was moved and the neighbourhood has returned to stability.

Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the chief constable of north Wales in displaying pictures of a motorcyclist killed on a north Wales road, without the permission of the relatives of that person, could be considered extremely antisocial? Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling for the resignation of the chief constable?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that this episode has caused enormous distress to the relatives of the victim, who were not even consulted in advance about this behaviour by the North Wales police chief constable. It is completely unacceptable, and I know that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is looking into it very seriously.

Madeleine Moon: Grant Gronow, Jonathan Smith, Nathan John, Jessica Littleford, Stacey Hughes and Hannah Jonesthe Bryntirion sixare young people who helped a woman who was being assaulted and robbed. They went to her aid while adults stood by, and they have been given a respect award. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending these young people, who demonstrate that not all young people are thugs? Many are decent law-abiding examples to adults of good behaviour.

Peter Hain: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating these young people from her constituency; they are an example to everybody and a model to others. This allows us to state, as she has, that only a tiny minority of youngsters behave in the yobbish fashion that gives rise to the need for antisocial behaviour legislation. The vast majority of young people are a good example to their communityas, indeed, are her constituents.

Environmental Issues

Andrew Robathan: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on environmental issues affecting Wales which are negotiated in Europe.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Welsh Assembly Government colleagues to discuss issues affecting Wales, including environmental issues negotiated in Europe.

Andrew Robathan: The EU, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Welsh Administration all share a concern about the collapse of some species in Wales. There was a target[Hon. Members: Tories!] I am sure that some are also concerned about the resurgence of the Tories in Wales. I am particularly concerned about the 81 per cent. decline in the number of curlew, for instance, since 1993, and the water vole has also declined by some four fifths in the past 20 years or so. I do not blame the Government for this, but what can the Minister and the Welsh Administration do to reverse this decline in biodiversity in Wales and to establish better wildlife conditions for the benefit of all the people in Wales?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. It is true that certain species have been recorded as being in decline, whereas others are improving. Species such as the otter are now returning to many Welsh rivers in which they have not been seen for decades, so the picture is mixed. However, it is important that factors such as climate change be addressed as well, because they may well have an effect on biodiversity not just in Wales, but throughout the world. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the Climate Change Bill, which will put in legislation clear targets to try to address the threat that we all face from climate change.

Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Assembly for Wales has a central role to play in protecting our environment and combating climate change? Will he support proposals for new law-making powers for the Assembly to tackle environmental pollution in all its forms?

Nick Ainger: Yes, indeed, my hon. Friend raises an important point. Issues relating to climate change and how we tackle it are now the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government. For example, I know their commitment to trying to achieve, by 2011, the target of all new buildings in Wales being carbon neutral. That is the sort of policy needed to tackle climate change, and we will also address it through technology and encouraging people and institutions to act more responsibly.

Lembit �pik: Is the Minister aware that ground-level ozone and summer smog caused mainly by traffic emissions has killed an estimated 1,500 people in Wales since 1997? I am probably the first Member of Parliament to ride a Vectrix electric bike, launched yesterday, a zero carbon vehicle with a range of 68 miles for a 20p charge. Does the Minister agree that such technology will reduce health risks and will he join me and the Welsh Liberal Democrats in promoting the use and manufacture of such vehicles in Wales?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is right that emissions are not only about climate change, but about health and the quality of the atmosphere. My official cars in London and Cardiff are electric hybrids. The Government have produced a list of top tips for smarter drivers which, if all motorists followed them, would reduce emissions by 5.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year and save more than 2 billion in fuel costs. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), it is important that individuals take the decision to address climate change in their habits, including the way in which they drive and the type of vehicles they use. That is part of the way in which we will tackle climate change.

Cheryl Gillan: When the Secretary of State has not been repeating election slogans like a parrot, he has forcibly and repeatedly supported the proposed 200 turbine wind farm at Gwynt y Mr, to the extent that he has even attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) for raising his constituents' concerns about the massive impact of that environmental project. In the past 48 hours, the First Minister has surprisingly and cynically taken the Conservative line and joined us in calling for a public inquiry. Will the Minister now condemn the First Minister for dumping official Labour policy on that wind farm for the sake of a few votes?

Nick Ainger: That policy has certainly not been dumped. The fact is that last year the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) came to north Wales, shortly before announcing that he was going to put a wind turbine on his house, and described the Gwynt y Mr development as a massive bird blender. He may have changed his view, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the First Minister has not changed his view on his support for renewable energy. Yet again, the Conservatives claim to have a grand policy in favour of renewable energy, but when it comes to hard decisions, they fluff them.

David Evennett: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on environmental issues in Wales.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet Welsh Assembly Government colleagues to discuss issues affecting Wales, including the environment.

David Evennett: Can the Secretary of State confirm that Wales is on target to meet its national target to increase recycling and composting rates to 40 per cent. by 2009-10? What discussions has he had with the First Minister about that?

Peter Hain: The recycling and waste disposal schemes being pursued by the Welsh Assembly Government are on track and we have discussed these matters. Wales has a big and ambitious recycling and waste disposal programme at all levels, and encourages households to do the same.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Andrew Selous: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 May.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements for today, I again have the sad duty of asking the House to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Rifleman Paul Donnachie of the 2nd Battalion the Rifles, who was killed in Iraq at the weekend. We pay tribute to him for his dedication and sacrifice. This has been a difficult month for our forces in Iraq, and more so for their families. We send them our thoughts, prayers and sympathy at this time.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Andrew Selous: The whole House will wish to join the Prime Minister in his expression of condolence.
	If the Prime Minister had a quote for an extension on his house 18 months ago, which was resubmitted today for more than two and half times the original amount, I suspect that he might get a few more quotes. Could I ask him to do exactly the same on behalf of my constituents, all of whom will benefit from the A5-M1 link, and very kindly meet me and Highways Agency officials to find out why costs have escalated so astronomically, and to see what can be done about it?

Tony Blair: Although the costs of the particular scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers have escalated, it is only because the Government are making money available for investment that it can go ahead at all. I am perfectly happy to meet him to discuss the scheme, but the business case for the link has to be made good on the basis of the funding available from the Department for Transport.

David Blunkett: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 10th anniversary of his premiership, and on the tremendous vision and leadership that he has shown in this country? What is the balance that must be achieved between understanding the hurt and concern of those bereaved or injured on 7 July 2005, and the need for maintaining absolute focus on the work of the Security Service and the police? We owe them congratulations and a debt of gratitude for the work done in Operation Crevice which, in early 2004, saved us from the most devastating terrorist attack that would have involved the most enormous loss of life.

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the magnificent work that our security services and police do in protecting this country from terrorism. It is worth reminding ourselves that Operation Crevice was an enormous success for those services, focusing as it did on one of the many different plots against which they protect our country, day in and day out. I entirely understand the concerns of the families of the 7/7 victims, but I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee report is the right one, and that at this stage it would be wrong, as my right hon. Friend indicated, to divert resources, attention and energy into anything other than fighting terrorism on all fronts.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Paul Donnachie and the soldier from the Royal Signals Regiment who were killed in Basra in the past week. As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, the conviction of five British-born men for planning terrorist attacks on a massive scale reminds us of the risks that we face. However, the links between them and those responsible for the 7/7 bombings that killed 52 people in London raise a number of important questions. Given the need to enhance public confidence in the fight against terrorism and to answer those questions, will the Prime Minister clarify whether he has ruled out, once and for all, holding a proper independent inquiry?

Tony Blair: I have ruled out having another proper independent inquiry. The fact is that the Intelligence and Security Committee went into all the issues in immense detail. It had to be somewhat cryptic in its report, because the case in Operation Crevice was sub judice at that point, but it received the vast bulk of the information and is now perfectly entitled to call for anything else it needs. The Committee went into immense detail, so I believe that it would be a mistake for us to have another inquiry as if their inquiry were somehow either not proper or not independentit was both those things.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says that the ISC report will be equivalentas it wereto a full independent inquiry, but I have to say that I really do not think that is right. For all the good work the ISC does, it has limitations; it has no investigative powers, it has no investigator and it did not hear evidence from the West Yorkshire special branch. Are not those good reasons for an independent inquirynot a public inquiry, but a full independent inquiry?

Tony Blair: Let me make one thing clear. The ISC was perfectly entitled to ask for any information it wanted. As far as I am aware, everyone gave the maximum co-operation throughout so it would be wrong to say that in some way or other the Committee did not have the information it wanted. Any information the Committee wants it can have. The ISC is headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and its members have experience in the intelligence and security fieldmany of them as former Ministers. We have to be clear about the reason why people want another inquiry. I totally understand both the grief of the victims of 7/7 and their anxiety to have another inquiry, but the reason why people want another inquiry is for it to reach a different conclusion. That is understandable, but in circumstances where the ISC has had access to everything it needed, and could have access to anything else it needs, it would not be responsible for us to have a further full independent inquiry that would simply divert the Security Service, the police and others from their task of fighting terrorism.

David Cameron: I have to disagree with the Prime Minister. The reason why people want an independent inquiry is the scale of what happened in London on 7 July, when 52 people were murdered and 700 were injured. The reason why people want a full inquiry is to get to the truth [ Interruption. ] It is important. In the case of the intelligence failures before the Iraq war, yes, there was an ISC inquiry but the Prime Minister ordered the Butler inquiry as well. Is it not equally important to get to the truth in this case, too?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that what I object to is the idea that somehow there has been an attempt not to provide the truth up to now. I do not believe for a single instant that the ISC did not get to the truth; indeed, it had the information revealed in Operation Crevice before it and looked into it in immense detail. Some of what has appeared in the media is, frankly, misleading and wrong; what the shadow Home Secretary has been saying is also wrongI think that he said in a newspaper article the other day that MI5 and the security services had been starved of resources after 9/11. That is simply not correct. The budget has been doubled and we have dramatically increased the number of people working for our security services.
	The whole point is that those people do an immensely difficult task. They went along to the ISC; the then head of MI5 gave evidence three times and special branch gave evidenceagain contrary to what the shadow Home Secretary has said. The Committee was able to call for whatever information it wanted. If we now say, effectively, that the ISC inquiry was not adequate and if we hold another inquiry, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall simply cause great anxiety and difficulty in the service and we shall not get any more truthbecause the truth is there in the ISC; what we shall do is undermine support for our security services and I am not prepared to do that.

Colin Burgon: The Prime Minister will be aware that Labour has delivered on its commitment to build a new cancer unit in Leeds and that Leeds people know that only a Labour Government will deliver on a children's hospital. A powerful campaign is being developed by parents and the  Yorkshire Evening Post, so will my right hon. Friend use his energy and commitment to urge the NHS trust in Leeds to get its act together and submit a realistic plan to build a children's hospital?

Tony Blair: I shall certainly do exactly as my hon. Friend says. He is completely right: a huge multi-million pound investment has been set aside for Leeds. We want to see the best of services there and he will know, from experience in his constituency, that waiting lists have come down significantly and that there are extra doctors, extra nurses and, of course, a massive capital investment in the NHS.

Menzies Campbell: Once again, I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence at the end of what he rightly describes as a most difficult month. Now that the former Secretary of State for Defence has admitted that there were serious errors in the planning for post-war Iraq, who takes responsibility for those errors?

Tony Blair: The responsibility for everything to do with the conduct of the Iraq war is, of course, taken by the Government. The points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) made about deba'athification and the disbandment of the army are points that I have made before. However, let me just say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the reason why things are so challenging and difficult in Iraq is that we have al-Qaeda on the one handan outside terrorist organisation committing appalling acts of carnage in Iraqand Iranian-backed Shi'a extremists on the other. Our job, in my view, is to stand up to both of those elements, as they are precisely the elements that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan and the world over.

Menzies Campbell: But is it not clear where responsibility for Iraq lies? The President made the decisions, the Prime Minister argued the case, the Chancellor signed the cheques and the Tories voted it through. That is where the responsibility for Iraq is to be found.

Tony Blair: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy had been implemented, Saddam Hussein and his two sons would still be running Iraq.  [ Interruption. ] Yes they would. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We removed Saddam. We are fighting terrorism now in Iraq. Our troops are there with the United Nations mandate and the full support of the Iraqi Government. It is not British soldiers or indeed American soldiers that are committing acts of terrorism in Iraq; it is people who are going there specifically to stop that country's democracy working. I believe that our job is to stand up for Iraq and its democracy against terrorism.

Dennis Skinner: If my right hon. Friend is not having an inquiry into the matters affecting 7 July, will he have another inquiry into Black Wednesday, on 16 September 1992? It is now apparent that new information has emerged. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition is in a photograph and he was not trailed at the time. I believe that that demands a new inquiry. It would suit this side of the House and it might even drive another man to drugs.

Tony Blair: Actually, an inquiry is one way of dealing with that. The other way is to make sure that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) never gets his hands on the British economy again.

John Baron: On 24 September 2002, the Prime Minister told the House that if Saddam Hussein was able to purchase fissile material illegally, it would be only one to two years before he had acquired a usable nuclear weapon. Given that a recent letter that I have from the Cabinet Office can find no basis for that claima claim that was not attributed to the Joint Intelligence Committee and which did not reflect the standing JIC assessment, as the Prime Minister knew very wellon what basis did the Prime Minister make that claim, both in a statement to the House and in the Iraq dossier?

Tony Blair: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says at all. The fact is that if Saddam Hussein had been able to acquire fissile material, it would have allowed him to develop nuclear weapons. That is correct. The one thing that we know is that he was somebody who used, not nuclear, but chemical and biological weapons against his own people. So, let me just say to the hon. Gentleman, some people may take the view that Saddam was not a threat; that is not my view. He was a threat and we dealt with him.

Gisela Stuart: On 20 May, a constituent of mine, Sir Richard Knowles, will celebrate his 90th birthday. Dick Knowles became the leader of Birmingham city council in 1984. Despite a Tory Government who did not believe in investing in our cities, he changed the face of that city. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Dick Knowles on his birthday, and will he share my hope that the weak and indecisive leadership that we are currently experiencing in Birmingham will soon come to an end?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Let me join her in wishing Dick Knowles all the best on his 90th birthday. He did an immense amount for Birmingham. The work that he did is one of the reasons why Birmingham is such a thriving and successful European city today.

David Cameron: Two years ago, the Prime Minister told us that he would serve a full third term. Yesterday, he said that he would be off in weeks. He has told us who is going to wear the crown; can he tell us who wielded the knife?

Tony Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about leadership and candidates, I certainly will not be following his example regarding the Mayor of London. I can assure him that the person I will be backing for the leadership of the Labour party will at least be a member of the Labour party.

David Cameron: Why is the Prime Minister so coy? Why will he not tell us a bit about the man who will be our Prime Minister and how that man managed to get the better of him? Given that the Prime Minister said that he would serve a full third term, does that mean that when he walks out of No. 10 Downing street, this Parliament is at an end, or was that the last of his broken promises?

Tony Blair: As the right hon. Gentleman asks me to tell him something about my right hon. Friend, I will tell him about what we have achieved together over these past 10 years: economic stability through the independence of the Bank of England; record investment in public services; better maternity leave and maternity pay; more support for pensioners; the repeal of section 28; a ban on tobacco advertising; the climate change levy; and, of course, the minimum wage. What do they all have in common? The right hon. Gentleman's party voted against them.

Anne Moffat: Does my right hon. Friend share my growing concern about the seeming acceptability of taking cannabis and the fact that it can lead to mental health problems? Does he know how to grow one's own dopeplant a Scottish nationalist?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes her point very well, which is why I hope that people vote tomorrow for the Union and for Scotland and England staying together, not for separation.

Richard Younger-Ross: One part of the Government's [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Richard Younger-Ross: I seem to have upset some Members again, Mr. Speaker.
	One part of the Government's modernisation programme that is proving very popular with older people is bus passes for the over-60s. Is the Prime Minister aware that Lib Dem authorities such as Teignbridge are meeting that command, while the Tory mayor of Torbay and the Tory council of East Devon are denying older people the freedom to travel across Devon? Will the Prime Minister tell us which is right, and will he ask his successor to ensure that funding is available so that the scheme can continue

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: First, I should thank the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to what we are doing for pensioners. I have some other things to add that the Liberal Democrats have posted on their website about the Government's record over the past 10 years. They have given the
	Blair/Brown years...4 out of 10 
	 [ Interruption. ] The six I kind of accepted, but what are the four things that we have got right, according to the Liberal Democrats? They are:
	stability for the economy. A Foreign Policy with an ethical dimension
	 [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. There is also the
	historic modernisation of our political system
	beginning
	with the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
	Fourthly:
	After initially sticking to Tory spending limits, investment in Britain's dilapidated public services started. The fruits of that investment can now be seen. In the NHS
	this is from the Lib Dems
	more staff, reduced waiting lists, better care in...areas such as cancer. In Education a schools building programme, better paid teachers, more books, and better equipment.
	[Hon. Members: Hooray.] People should not be voting Tory or Lib Dem; they should be voting Labour.

Adrian Bailey: I know that my right hon. Friend is an enthusiast of both education and football, so may I draw his attention to the Aces scheme in my constituency, which is a partnership between West Bromwich Albion football club, local schools and the local authority that has raised academic standards by an estimated 9 per cent. over the past two years and is funded by the neighbourhood renewal fund? Will he make an undertaking to monitor that scheme and see what potential it has to be rolled out in other historically deprived educational areas?

Tony Blair: I echo the congratulations that my hon. Friend gave to the scheme, and I thank West Bromwich Albion and all those other partners for the work that they are doing. It is important to recogniseand I have seen this for myself, for example, in the new facilities that are very close to West Bromwich Albion itselfthat there has been a massive increase in regeneration in our inner-city areas, which is why it is important that we keep that funding going. Good use has been made of it, and it is producing better facilities and it has reduced levels of deprivation. I entirely support his congratulations to those involved in that scheme.

Greg Mulholland: In 1997, the Prime Minister said that one of the reasons why people elected a Labour Government was their concern that the NHS was failing them and their families.  [ Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Greg Mulholland: And in 2007, consultants said that
	the present state of children's services in Leeds is not fit for purpose and we are anxious about the continuing safety of children in hospital.
	May I ask the Prime Minister in the dying days of his premiership whether that is his NHS legacy in Leeds, or will he, before he goes, promise the people of Leeds that they will at last get the much needed children's hospital that was approved in 2004 and shelved in 2007?

Tony Blair: I wonder whether that was a planted question, because the NHS legacy is more staff. In the hon. Gentleman's area, there have been 31,000 more NHS staff, including 7,000 more nurses, and there are reduced waiting liststhe number of people waiting over six months has fallen dramatically. In relation to the children's hospital, yes, we are committed to that extra investment in the health service, but he should know that, for example, in Making it Better, there was a request for Leeds MPs to come along to a meeting, but he did not attend, which does not say a great deal for him.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have points of order, and I am not responsible for the Prime Minister's answers.

Tony Blair: If it is not correct, I apologise entirely, but I am also told that the hon. Gentleman had two meetings arranged with the chief executive of the strategic health authority which he has cancelled, too.

Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday, we had a visit in Northern Ireland from the President of the European Commission. At that meeting, the President made an announcement that he was instituting a taskforce to look into Northern Ireland's position regarding the money that comes from Europe, and also to help new industry. Will the Prime Minister join me and the people of Northern Ireland in welcoming that announcement, and will he give us a promise today, before he leaves office, that he will back it all the way?

Tony Blair: I understand the importance of the visit by the President of the European Commission, which was made partly in direct response to a request from the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that I will fully back whatever the Commission does to support investment and industry in Northern Ireland.

Jim Dobbin: A company called Whipp and Bourne, which is one of the country's largest manufacturers and exporters of switchgear, announced this week that it is to close, with the loss of 200 exceptionally well skilled jobs. The rumour is that the company may be intending to move to China or India. How can the Government encourage companies like Whipp and Bourne, first, to remain in my constituency, and, secondly to remain in the UK? I am meeting the trade unions on Friday, and I would like to give them some hope.

Tony Blair: First, we should extend our sympathy to those who have lost their jobs and been made redundant as a result of the decision that the company has taken. It is difficult for us to prevent companies from deciding to relocate. The best thing that we can do for business and industry is to keep our economy strong, improve the levels of investment in skills, and make sure, as we now do, that where major redundancies are announced, we provide proper structured help for those who are made redundant. Where we can, of course, we also encourage companies to keep their location here in this country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to discuss those possibilities with the Department of Trade and Industry. It is an unfortunate fact here and round the world that companies are highly mobile. The most important thing, however, is to keep the economy sufficiently strong so that we are always generating new jobs.

Lee Scott: Yes, it is me again, Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please use his final weeks in office to secure the release of the hostages Alan Johnston and Corporal Gilad Shalit, working together with the Palestinian Authority? I believe that that will secure a way forward for peace in the middle east.

Tony Blair: I am sorry that Alan Johnston and, in a different context, Corporal Shalit are still kept as hostages. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that their release would make a big difference in the middle east. In respect of Alan Johnston, there is no conceivable reason for him to be kept. He was a journalist doing his job out there. There have also been many calls from Palestinian leaders and Palestinian journalists for his release, and we continue to do everything we can to facilitate that. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say, in respect of Corporal Shalit, that his release would allow a whole series of things to happen, not least releases of Palestinian prisoners, and other things that would allow us to move the situation forward. There continues to be nothing more urgent than the middle east.

Alun Michael: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the efforts being made by the Welsh Assembly under Labour to promote social enterprise and co-operative initiatives? Does he agree that economic and social development in Wales depends on a continuation of the strong partnership between the House of Commons and the Assembly, both under Labour? Will he encourage people to fear the dangers of a negative nexus of nationalists and Conservatives?

Tony Blair: When we look at the large investment in Wales and the tremendous strength of the Welsh economythe action that has been taken by the Welsh Executive under the leadership of Rhodri Morgan has been essential in that I should have thought that that is infinitely preferable to the ragbag strange coalition between the Conservative party and nationalists.

Robert Smith: Today, Mrs. Ogg retires as sub-postmistress after 30 years' service in the post office in Laurencekirk. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating her on her retirement, and ensure that when the Department of Trade and Industry announces the future of the Post Office, her successor enjoys the same success as he hopes his successor will?

Tony Blair: Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mrs. Ogg on her service and the work that she has done over the years. I point out that it is a result of this Government that we have managed to invest about 2 billion in the post office network. We know that for all the reasons that are understandable it is still subject to intense pressure, but I hope very much that the successor in that post office is able to continue and make sure that the post office has a viable future, but it must be viable within the subsidy that we are able to give.

Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting my constituency a few weeks ago [Interruption.] Opposition Members might consider this to be important. My right hon. Friend visited my constituency to review projects for local people who are suffering major change following the collapse of MG Rover a couple of years ago. Will he assure me that that support, particularly for community infrastructure, will continue? Does he agree that ongoing support from Government year in, year out for local communities facing change is vital, rather unlike what we experienced in the 1980s and early 1990s?

Tony Blair: There has been a big change in the way in which we deal with situations in which there are large numbers of redundancies. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in respect of the collapse of Rover, as that was an important part of our bringing together all the different partners. We made a big investment from Government and, as I saw for myself when I visited his constituency, a large proportion of those people have now found alternative work and employment. An immense amount of effort has gone in, and I think that that is what a modern welfare state is aboutnot trying to pretend that we can stop companies closing if they are not profitable or a decision is made to relocate them, but getting underneath the work force and supporting them in their desire to achieve new work and be able to cope with the process of that redundancy. That has been immensely successful in relation to MG Rover, and I pay tribute to everyone engaged in it.

John Maples: Recent court decisions have left us in the extraordinary position that the Government can neither deport nor detain dangerous foreign terrorists. These decisions flow directly from the Human Rights Act 1998. As it is within the power of this House to amend the Act and within the power of the Government to file a derogation from the European convention, why does the Prime Minister not introduce amending legislation so that this situation can be remedied?

Tony Blair: Because it is not the problem. The problem is the European convention on human rights. The reason why there is a problem is the court case, I think in 1996, in relation toI think I am right in saying thisthose who were alleged to be engaged in terrorism in respect of India at the time. As a result of that caseI think it is called the Chahal casethis difficulty has been created. We are trying to get that decision overturned in respect of the European Court of Human Rights, and it is essential that we do so, because where I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman is that we cannot have a situation in which people come to this country and engage in acts of terrorism, inciting terrorism or encouraging terrorism, and then we are told that we cannot deport them back to their own country, even with a memorandum of understanding with that country, when they simply say, We may be mistreated when we go back there, despite what they are doing here.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing about it. What we are doing is trying to get that decision overturned. It is not correct, however, that it comes about as a result of domestic legislation. It comes about as a result of that case, decided under the last Government and under the European convention on human rights.

Points of Order

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your advice on how to correct the parliamentary record. This is not the first time that we have heard misleading things from the Dispatch Box, but

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and he must be given some [ Interruption. ] Order. Some hon. Members have been here more than two years and do not know too much either. I am trying to say to him, in order to give him a chance to put his case, that inadvertently misleading is the best way to put it, after which we can move on.

Greg Mulholland: This is not the first time that inadvertently misleading comments have been made from the Dispatch Box. The simple reality is that I did not receive an invitation to the ministerial meeting, and, as with the announcement on the children's hospital, the first that I heard of the matter was in the newspaper, which is how the NHS is being run in Leeds. I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how to change the parliamentary record, and I hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to issue an apology, although we know that he is not very good at that.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House that I am not responsible for what MinistersPrime Ministers or any other Ministerssay from the Dispatch Box. However, the hon. Gentleman has managed to put the record straight. He has put the matter on the record, and if he says that he was not invited, that is good enough for me.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was Secretary of State for Defence, on 3 November 2003, he told me in the House, speaking on the Iraqi army:
	It was not a mistake to disband the army.[ Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 526.]
	In an interview featured in today's edition of  The Guardian, he is reported to have said, We certainly argued against. His assessment was that it had been catastrophic, allowing Saddam

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of debate. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that there are ways of putting the matter on the recordperhaps through an Adjournment debatebut I am not going to allow a point of order on it.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your ruling on the matter of sub judice? Both yesterday and today there have been references to the appalling judgment whereby two Libyan terror suspects are not being deported. Is it possible to ask on the Floor of the House why France, Germany and Holland are able to deport their terror suspects, but our courts do not allow us to do so?

Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that perhaps a Minister did say that it was sub judice, but my ruling is that it is not sub judice, and the hon. Gentleman is therefore free to ask parliamentary questions, either written or oral, or to raise the matter on an Adjournment.

James Duddridge: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice about a matter of which I have given you notice? Exactly a year ago today, I tabled a written parliamentary question about foreign nationals released from UK prisons who should have been considered for deportation. I received two holding replies and my office has chased the matter several times. I let the Immigration Minister know that I was going to raise this point of order and received some form of reply saying that it was not really a matter for the Minister but for the permanent secretary. A year on, what advice can you give me about ensuring that the Home Office responds more quickly? Specifically, can I bring the permanent secretary to this House to answer, or is it still the tradition of this House that Ministers should reply?

Mr. Speaker: Ministers are responsible for giving answers to this House. I know it is hard, but the hon. Gentleman must be persistent and get to the Table Office. I also put it on the record that, as I have said before, I understand that the Home Office, in particular, has been inundated with hundreds of questions. It is my view that these questions are being put down by researchers who have nothing better to do with their day. If people in Members' offices inundate Departments with questionsI am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman does thatthat puts the hon. Gentleman's questions on to the back burner. I ask hon. Members to be careful about inundating the Home Office with questions. The hon. Gentleman must be persistent and keep putting these matters forward on behalf of his constituents. I hope that that is helpful.

Town and Country Planning Acts (Amendment) Bill

John Mann: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to broaden the remit of the Local Government Ombudsman to include certain disputes arising from planning permission granted by local government authorities to cover below-ground utilities; and to require development plans submitted to relevant local authorities to include provision for below-ground utilities.
	Unadopted roads are highways that are not maintained at the public expenseresponsibility for their upkeep rests on those whose properties face on to themand they include many older streets.
	The welcome growth of new house building since 1997 has significantly increased the number of unadopted roads. As in my constituency, developers often cut costs when building roads, forcing future residents, who may end up liable, to pick up the bill years after they have purchased their property. Although councils can provide moneys to assist residents with maintenance assistance, there is no statutory obligation on them to do so. Many of my constituents live on roads that the council refuses to maintain and for which they cannot afford to pay the upkeep costs.
	Under the Highways Act 1980, most roads are maintained at public expense. Usually, roads are adopted by local councils when the building standard meets the required level of quality; roads are usually unadopted when that standard is not met. Although it is obvious that the developer is at fault in many cases, no legislation deals with causation. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 exempts the sale of land from its provisions, so if residents want to prove that responsibility lies with the developer, they must pursue that course through private litigation. My constituents cannot afford to do that.
	Unadopted roads therefore remain the responsibility of those who cannot afford them. The highways authority can, under the Highways Act, force residents to make repairs that are needed to obviate danger to traffic and, if they will not, carry out repairs itself and claw back money from residents at a later date.
	In addition, water companies are responsible for all water leakages above and under the ground, but only on adopted land. That is a further expense that residents must bear if they find that their road is not adopted by the council.
	The fact that the position is allowed to exist means that developers can cut costs and leave new home owners to foot the bill. The previous official Government estimate, which is now significantly out of date, shows 4,000 miles of unadopted roads in this country.
	The Bill requires greater scrutiny by local authorities at the planning permission stage to ensure that proposed roads through developments are constructed to a standard that allows councils to adopt them. It requires developers to provide for below-ground utilities such as water and drainage. It also extends the remit of the local government ombudsman to cover disputes over the adoption of roads, allowing residents a tribunal for their complaints, without having to fall back on expensive private litigation.
	The problem in my area is highlighted by the new Gateford estate, which has more than 2,000 houses. It is difficult to work out against whom to litigate even if one has the resources. There is a triangulation involving the water authorities, the developer and the highways authority, and identifying against whom to litigate is impossible. Unless the local authority chooses to take pre-emptive action or the developer chooses to ensure that the roads and utilities are up to standard, there is a loop.
	In many modern developments, a plethora of developers works on the same site. Six separate developers are working on the Gateford estate in Worksop. Until I intervened in January, the electricity was not up to the national standard. It required the Member of Parliament to put together a protest to negotiate and get a national electricity standard. Again, that is not covered by statute.
	The problems that we experience in my areaflooding, street lights that do not work and dangerous footpathsapply to every part of the country. We found it especially astonishing that there was no requirement to have a plan for what is underground in the Gateford estate. There is an above-ground plan, but, for a huge new estate built by a plethora of developers, there was no intentionuntil many hundreds of hours of painstaking work by me, residents associations and the county council had passedto create such a plan for what is underground.
	There are unseen problemsfor example, where purchasers were unaware that utilities such as water and sewerage pipes were running under their corner properties but are resistant to remedial action and have a right to block it. My Bill would begin to deal with such problems.
	Those problems affect not only the quality of life but house prices. In my area, the price difference between a house that is 15 or 20 years old on an unadopted road and one that is on an adopted road can be 20,000 to 25,000 because of the liability of the householders.
	I am delighted that all the pressure from Councillor Fielding, the Gateford residents association and me, ably assisted by my staff, means that Nottinghamshire county council agreed this week to adopt the 50-odd roads on the Gateford estate at its own risk this year. It will adopt the vast majority in the next few weeks and within the next three months to ensure that residents on the estate live as council tax payers with the same rights as everyone else. That local authority is a well managed and well run leading council, which is clearly also forward thinking, but residents should not have to rely on the council taking the risk. That is why we need a statutory change.
	Although I commend Nottinghamshire county council and the residents for their work, I call on the Government to consider the Bill, which would improve the position for residents throughout the country. The existing law has almost enticed developers to cut costs and forced future residents, who are largely ignorant of the position until problems occur, to foot the bill. In an era of high house prices, that is often a hidden cost that is not budgeted for on purchase and could lead to severe financial problems for those who try to remedy the situation on their own.
	It is unacceptable, in my view, that a council, having approved a sub-standard development, can turn a blind eye to the problem and force residents to pay for its lack of scrutiny. By introducing new measures that require councils to scrutinise plans more carefully and ensure that roads and drainage are to the correct standard, my Bill will give some protection to residents before they buy. After they buy, it will help them by extending the powers of the local government ombudsman to deal with disputes of this nature. I commend my Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Mann, Jessica Morden, Natascha Engel, Helen Southworth, Stephen Pound, Clive Efford, Ms Diana R. Johnson, Mr. Kevan Jones, Christine Russell and Bob Spink.

Town and Country Planning Acts (Amendment)

John Mann accordingly presented a Bill to broaden the remit of the Local Government Ombudsman to include certain disputes arising from planning permission granted by local government authorities to cover below-ground utilities; and to require development plans submitted to relevant local authorities to include provision for below-ground utilities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 99].

Protection of Critical Infrastructure

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report, HC 41-x (paragraph 8), and the Fifteenth Report, HC 41-xv  (paragraph 2), of the European Scrutiny Committe e, Session 2006-07 . ]

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16932/06, Commission Communication on a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, and No. 16933/06 and ADDs 1-2, Draft Council Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection; and supports the Government's intention to secure adoption of these documents in Council, subject to a satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns.
	It is right and proper, I think, that there is a European dimension to these matters, but only some of them. I shall dwell in a moment on what the concerns are. Our critical national infrastructure consists clearly of the key components and assets without which essential services cannot be delivered to the UK. It includes energy, food, water, health, emergency services, finance, transport, government and public services and telecommunications.
	The Government rightly place great importance on ensuring that our critical national infrastructure is highly protected. The formation in February this year of the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which resulted from a merger of the National Security Advice Centre and the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre, demonstrated our commitment. Being more than simply the sum of its parts, the CPNI provides professional protection advice on all forms of threat to our critical national infrastructure owners and operators.
	It is becoming increasingly clear that there exists an extensive network of interdependencies among not just the UK's critical national infrastructure, but that of our international partners. The loss of critical infrastructure in one country has the potential to have severe effects in another. The loss of power supply can hinder emergency services or transport, for example, and these knock-on effects are able to continue across borders. Following human error, an overload of the electricity transmission system in Germany in November 2006 resulted in some 50 million EU citizens losing power in Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal.
	The Commission's European programme for critical infrastructure protection, known as EPCIP, partly responds to a political call to improve the protection of critical infrastructure across Europe, following the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London. It was agreed at the June 2004 European Council that measures needed to be taken to protect critical infrastructure in the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a significant difference between national matters such as water and sewerage and those that have international significance, such as the transport of energy across borders? The latter might involve nuclear power stations, on which events in neighbouring states could have an impact. Should not we focus on matters that are genuinely international, rather than on those that have merely national significance?

Tony McNulty: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to that point in a moment. First, however, it is important to explain the contextual background that brings us to where we are today.
	The EPCIP communication sets out a voluntary framework, including an EU action plan, support for the national protection programmes, and extensive research funded from the 137 million financial perspective. The draft directive provides the one binding aspect of the programme, establishing a uniform approach to identifying and designating European critical infrastructure and assessing the need to improve protection standards. For this process, the directive considers critical infrastructures to be essential service providers and certain hazardous sites with the potential for cross-border impact. The programme as a whole offers EU-wide benefits, and will therefore also benefit the UK. I will come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) in a moment.
	Events such as the power failure in Germany demonstrate that any country could be significantly affected by incidents in other member states. We need to understand that, with more than 1.6 million UK citizens living in other EU countries and relying on the critical infrastructures of those member states, we have a vested interest in ensuring that there are high standards of protection in those countries as well as our own. We must also bear in mind the broader point about the activities of British business interests in the European Union.
	As the motion implies, however, while the Government note the documents, our support for their adoption is subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns with certain elements of the directive, which we are trying to resolve through negotiations in the civil protection working group in Brussels. Our concerns include the criteria for defining European critical infrastructure, the absence of the consent clause that appeared in earlier drafts, the security of information provided as part of the protection of national infrastructure, and the imposition of legal requirements for owners and operators to produce operator security plans and appoint security liaison officers.
	Our concern about the designation of European critical infrastructure is to ensure, as my hon. Friend has suggested, that only infrastructures that are truly European and critical are designated. Given that this is all about European critical infrastructure, it is entirely reasonable that the infrastructures should be critical and European, but we are having some difficulties with where the documents are at in that regard at the moment. In order to achieve a satisfactory outcome, the Government would like to tighten the criteria for defining European critical infrastructure. For example, we are seeking a definition based on a significant level of impact to Europe that would result from the destruction or disruption of the infrastructure.
	Early drafts of the proposed directive included references to member states providing their consent to infrastructures on their territory being designated as European critical infrastructure, but the consent clause does not appear in the present draft. The Government would prefer to see the inclusion of such a clause, to prevent the identification of European critical infrastructure in the United Kingdom that we do not believe is appropriate. This relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend. Such a move could allay some of our concerns arising from the proposed definition of European critical infrastructure and ensure that only truly critical infrastructure is covered, and that it would be truly European in the sense that its disruption would impact on three or more countries, which we think is the appropriate number.

Simon Hughes: The Minister highlights the area of greatest concern. Could the Government give us a list of the bilateral or multilateral arrangements relating to these mattersfor example, a French-UK energy interconnector, or certain Irish-UK links? Obviously, where existing national agreements between European Union countries are sufficient, we will not need a new European structure to cover them. Do Ministers have some sort of base list of these arrangements?

Tony McNulty: I suspect that we do not. Such bilateral or multilateral arrangements might exist across government in a range of Departments, but I have not seen any, save for those that are of concern to the Home Office regarding national security and critical infrastructure protection. I am not going to pass on those lists, because I would argue strongly that they do not belong in this domain. I will certainly pursue the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, however. There might be lists of such arrangements relating to the gas, electricity and other energy sectors, which might be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry, of which I am unaware. If there are, and if I can have them produced for the House, I will do so.

John Bercow: In seeking to ensure that only projects that are critical and that can genuinely be classified as transnational in character are subject to this provision, is the Minister relying on the subsidiarity and proportionality provisions in existing European treaties the better to aid and abet his case? I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong , but is the corollary that, if he is unsuccessful, the danger exists that a new item will be lumped into the acquis communautaire against our wishes and in violation of our interests?

Tony McNulty: As with most of these matters, this goes in part towards the whole debate about subsidiarity. I am sure that this will be part of our deliberations this afternoon. The root of the binding elements of these documents is article 308which is of itself a matter for debatewhich requires unanimity. So this is not just about subsidiarity and all that that entails; it is about the fact that this provision has to be agreed unanimously, given its legal root in the compulsory and binding element.

Michael Connarty: rose

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose

Tony McNulty: I will give way first to my hon. Friend, just in the interest of the to and fro.

Michael Connarty: The Minister mentioned article 308, and I am sure that other people will do so. Under paragraph 2 of article 3, the Commission wishes to identify the sectors to which the provision will apply. The Government want the matter to go through commitology, which would then pass it through the Council under qualified majority voting. If there was a dispute, the European Court of Justice, rather than the democratic or political process, would then decide on the matter. So we would be passing the decision on the sectors in which the provision will apply out of our hands and to the European Court of Justice.

Tony McNulty: Yes, but only at the point at which there was a dispute about what sectors and specific sites should be included. That naturally follows from securing in the early stages the definition we want about the binding and non-binding elements of the directive. I do not think that I am mistaken in saying that going down the route that leads ultimately to the European Court would be a natural follow-through from the binding elements, if they are secured. We say clearly in the motion that we will not support those elements unless our outstanding concerns are addressed. That sounds terribly complicated, but I am sure that my hon. Friend fully understands, given his expertise in these matters.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister mentioned article 308, which, as he will know, is used to introduce exceptional measures when no other treaty provision is available. He will also know that it contains a requirement that the measures be undertaken
	in the course of the operation of the common market.
	What possible connection can there be between national security measures and the common market? Is not this another example of the Commission trying to expand its powers and of the Government yet again giving way and going along with them? As the Minister has already conceded, the Government have a veto.

Tony McNulty: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, save for his rather churlish points at the end, which I entirely expect from him but do not accept. As I said to the European Scrutiny Committee, and as will emerge from our deliberations, we are perfectly comfortable with the use of article 308. In the first instance, the matter is not one of national security, although it has national security dimensions, but the functioning and protection of critical elements of the infrastructure throughout the European Union to sustain markets must be a valid part of the pursuance of the integrity and cohesion of the common market, which is why the article 308 route is appropriate. I take his point, which is not just made by those who detract from all that is great and glorious in the European Union, that article 308 is used constantly as the thin end of a rather fat wedge to get more and more into either competence generally or the acquis communautaire, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) suggested. The argument is perfectly valid, but not one that we accept in these circumstances.
	In relation to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North about the definition, and the hope that a directive and binding agreement on European critical infrastructure was concerned mostly with, first, infrastructure, secondly, infrastructure that was critical and, thirdly, infrastructure that was Europeanhowever that is defined, and we defined it as impacting on three or more countriesthe consent clause that was in the earlier draft is not in the current one. With regard to the crucial point about the meeting of national security and wider infrastructure concerns and the security of information passed on in that regard, while article 296 of the treaty enables us to withhold information that could be detrimental to national security, the security of information that we do provide must be guaranteed. Various methods are already used for the provision of operator security plans and the appointment of security liaison officers, and the Government believe that the directive should reflect the existing situation, to minimise the burden of the measures on industry, regulators and government.
	As the motion states, we support the principle of raising protection standards of critical infrastructure in Europe. It is in our interests to see such protection increased and, through the EPCIP framework, to support member states in establishing and improving their critical national infrastructure protection programmes. None the less, it is recognised by all that the provision of protective security for critical infrastructure is a national responsibility and must remain so. That is our starting point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said, that is why the definition is so important, as are the other concerns that I have outlined.

John Bercow: In so far as it is possible, it would greatly assist our deliberations to move from the realm of metaphysical abstraction to that of concrete example. That is not entirely straightforward, but if the Minister, in pursuance of his argument, gave the House examples of what the Commission might envisage as falling within its remit, with which the Government disagree, our deliberations would be invested with a much greater sense of realism and practicality. In short, will he give some examples of what the Commission wants and we do not?

Tony McNulty: In relation to matters European, I have learned that woe betide the Minister who seeks to mind-read the Commission. If we believe the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), anything that could remotely be described as infrastructure would be included. In some circumstances, the interconnectivity of the energy network on continental Europe is by definition much more pronounced than that of ours. The oft-quoted example of the accident that led to the German power system failing, and the implications for a huge element of the European power network, is a good one. But whether that should lead to an enthusiasm for telling each member state to get its act together in order better to protect its national infrastructure, or to elements being defined as critical and European, is exactly the point that the debate has reached. I will not even begin to pretend that I have a list of examples that I think that the Commission is considering. That is why the definition is so important.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister mentioned national responsibilities. Does the directive extend to international negotiations? He will know that once a directive is implemented domestically, it gives the Commission and the EU soleor, in Euro-speak, exclusivecompetence in negotiations between member states and countries outside the European Union. Can he specifically assure us that, after the directive is implemented, our ability to negotiate and conclude agreements about security and infrastructure assets with third parties will not be inhibited?

Tony McNulty: As I understand the matter, the hon. Gentleman's description of a directive is valid in relation to the binding elements. Much of the directive and the documents behind it, however, are entirely voluntary. That is whyI was going to say unusually, but I will not say thatthe hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a clear point in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said about the definition. Where the protection of such infrastructure can be achieved bilaterally, multilaterally or on a sectoral basis, in areas that are not, as we would define them, either European, critical or infrastructure, that is where the competence is and should remain. That is why the definition is so important. I think that the right hon. Member for Wells made a good point about the binding elementspeople will tell me if it is otherwiseand that is why we have concerns, which remain concerns and which we hope will be resolved. In relation to the timetable, there was enthusiasm to deal with the matter at the June Council. Given all the to-ing and fro-ing of negotiations, however, that is unlikely to be the case. I also take the right hon. Gentleman's wider point that there are ways in which a nation state can make multilateral and bilateral agreements, below the European level, to protect its national infrastructure.

Simon Hughes: To follow up my earlier intervention and that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), given that the documents that we have seen include a section that, it says, sets out the EU justification for the programme, including the growing number of member states preparing their own approaches to critical infrastructure, the need to eliminate weak links, and the additional costs implied, I hope that the Minister will go back to the Commission and say, You think this is justified. Now give us the examples that show that we need this now. Without examples, the argument is theoretical, and the case is not strongly made.

Tony McNulty: In part, I make no apology for being theoretical, as, with the best will in the world, I cannot and will not debate or show entirely the UK's negotiating hand on the Floor of the House. I have tried to articulate as much as possible our concerns, which remain. That is why, although we welcome the document, we do not want it adopted unless or until those concerns are recognised. I take the hon. Gentleman's general point, however.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I be helpful in following what the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said about examples? Can we have something between the hard examples, in our practical, pragmatic British way, and the Euro-speak metaphysics at the other extreme, and consider a hierarchy of risks? Nuclear power stations pose a serious risk to life, and disruption of energy supply might pose a serious risk to an economy, at least for a period. When the toilets do not work in a locality, however, that is not a serious risk. Even in Euro-speak, there is what might be recognised as a hierarchy of risks.

Tony McNulty: I hope that I can safely assure the House that toiletsor lavatories, as we are supposed to call them, if we do not want to be at the wrong end of a class war, or inverse class warwill not figure in critical European structure. The lavatories would have to be quite important to be critical, Europeanas we would define itand, more widely, infrastructure.
	While we are in the land of the abstract and the metaphysical, that is not just because of the binding elements, but at least partly because, while I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that all this is about national security rather than marketsI think my point about infrastructure was well madethe supporting documents, partly covered by what was said by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, contain exhortations about what nation states need to do to develop their own infrastructure, on their own terms, to the level of public protection that we would all desire.

Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McNulty: I was just deprecating my hon. Friend's extrapolation from article 308 in connection with national security. There are elements of national security relating to our infrastructurealthough I hasten to add that they would not necessarily cover toiletsthat are a matter for the United Kingdom, and have a heavy red line around them.

Michael Connarty: As I think will be clear to anyone who has read the original Commission proposal, the Green Paper and indeed the directive, although the Commission's list of elements on which it wants a common European position includes postal serviceswhich are not obviously critical to securityit also includes armed forces. I know that the proposal by the Commission was rebuffed by the Government, and I hope that it will not appear again, because it was over-ambitious; but what about the channel tunnel? It is a critical piece of infrastructure linking two countries, and only two countries. Would the Government draw a red line around that, and say that they would not allow it to be ruled on by the Commission or the European Court of Justice?

Tony McNulty: As I have said, our starting definition of the European element of European critical infrastructure is a critical piece of infrastructure that would have an immediate impact on three or more European countries. Let me return to what was said by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. There is plenty that the United Kingdom and France can do, should do and are doing bilaterally to protect the channel tunnel that, in my view at least, falls outside a directive of this kind and the definition of European critical infrastructure within it.
	With that, I commend the motion to the House.

Edward Garnier: The Minister has commended the motion to the House, but with a degree of scepticism and lack of enthusiasm that I find refreshing. I hope that he will be as sceptical and as questioning when he comes to negotiate with his European counterparts over the further deliberations on this set of instruments.
	I am grateful to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), for initiating the debate. Although not many of his Committee colleagues are here, I think it important for the Government to experience head-on the feeling of the House as a whole about this issue.
	Something that has already emerged in the debatepartly from the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and those of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), but also from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)is the cultural difference between the Westminster and the European systems for creating legislation. What we see in this great volume before us is a set of fairly vague proposals which, although no doubt benignly motivated, lack the detail that we commonly expect in a piece of British parliamentary legislation. It is important for the Government to remember that when they negotiate with the Commission.
	The timing of today's debate may be fortuitous or it may be deliberate, but it coincides with the conclusion of what has become known as the Crevice trial at the Old Bailey, at which a number of dangerous conspirators were convicted of involvement in acts relating to and preparatory for terrorism. It is possible that had those men succeeded in their endeavours, hundreds or even more people would have been killed and the institutions and infrastructures of our country placed under huge strain. Let us hope, although I fear it will be a forlorn hope, that the long sentences given to the defendants will deter others of similar mind and intention, and that the measures we are discussing willin one form or another, but not necessarily as set out in the documentsbe implemented and placed in a state of readiness, but never activated in response to a threat to the critical infrastructure of a number of European Union member states.
	The Crevice trial provides us with some useful lessons about threats to our national security and our national infrastructure. The definition of critical infrastructure in the documents before us is:
	Those facilities and networks, services and property the destruction of which would have a serious impact on the health, safety, security or economic well-being of citizens or the effective functioning of government in the member states. Such infrastructure includes systems for electricity and gas production and distribution, telephone exchanges and other communications systems, sewage plants, food distribution and key government services.
	It is surely the duty of the Government in every member state to identify all facilities and services which come within that wide definition, and I trust that our Governmentirrespective of the events made public through the recent trial, and regardless of the outrages of 7 July 2005 and what might have happened on 21 Julyhave done exactly that.
	It is clear that the House does not need a list comprising the infrastructure. However, given what we now know about the information relating to the Crevice defendants which was known in advance of 7 July 2005 by our security services and the police, we need to be assured that the Home Office and its Ministersespecially the Home Secretarywill ensure that the fullest possible inquiry is undertaken by an independent figure of some standing into the events, failures and mishaps that have now been revealed.
	We know, for example, that there were six good-quality photos of Sidique Khan, although the Intelligence and Security Committee was told that there was just one poor-quality photograph. First we were told by the ISC that identities were unknown

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than to talk about the Crevice trial in the context of these documents. He must not stray too far.

Edward Garnier: You may have been temporarily distracted, Mr. Speaker. What I am suggesting is that the Crevice trial dealt with infrastructure. It dealt with an attack, or a threatened attack, on our infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is really pushing the boat out now. We know that the trial related to infrastructure, but his speech must relate to what we are discussing, which is more specific than that. According to the case that he has made, we could discuss practically anything, but we cannot do that today.

Edward Garnier: Well, there we are. I am sure that you are entirely right, Mr. Speaker. I shall endeavour to resist the urge to talk about parts of the infrastructure of this country, although we are a European member state and are affected by what is in the documents.
	The European Scrutiny Committee found the Minister's written official response to the documents less than wholly reassuring. It stated:
	In this connection, we recall that the European Council on 17 and 18 June 2004 called on the Council to prepare an overall strategy to enhance the protection of critical infrastructures 'on the basis of a coordinated approach by the SG/HR5 and the Commission'. In circumstances where the role of the Council's Counter-Terrorism Coordinator is not even mentioned in the Commission's proposals, we find it open to question how far there has been any 'coordinated' approach of the kind referred to by the European Council.... As such, the measure is concerned essentially with national security and any internal market effects are, in our view, merely incidental. In our view, these incidental economic effects cannot be relied on to justify Community involvement in the maintenance of national security.
	It seems to all of us, I suspect, that attacks on our infrastructure do not simply constitute natural disasters such as floods and storms, or the pollution of main freshwater or sea water channels. We are talking about attacks on infrastructure in its widest sensethe definition given in the documents. I will not pursue my discussion of the lessons that the House could learn from the 2005 terrorist attacks, because that would fall outside your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I ask Membersand particularly the Minister when he goes to Europe to have further discussionsto keep in the back of their minds when addressing this matter what I would have said.
	I had intended to say that the matters that I may not discuss are of relevance to the matters before us today, as no discussion of critical infrastructure in the European context can avoid the real and present threat to our own infrastructure and the imperative for this Government to take all necessary steps to maintain it, to protect it, to repair it and, in so far as its degradation will affect our EU neighbours, to ensure that we liaise and co-operate effectively with them to plan for that contingency.
	Not all EU states have been attacked by terrorists, but several have. Not all EU states have a growing number of immigrants from countries, societies and traditions that find our institutions, societal norms and national characteristics strange and even inimical, but several do. Not all EU states play a world, extra-European or extra-regional role in trading, diplomatic and military terms to the extent that our country does, but all of them, no matter how large or small, are potentially vulnerable to attacks on their infrastructures, and both individually and collectively we must pay heed to the attacks that we have endured over the past 40 years, in order to prepare for yet further attacks and be in a position to deal with them. In respect of such attacks, it is not a question of if, but of when. We would be foolish not to have contingency plans in place.
	However, the documents imply a yet further increase in EU competence over the affairs of member states. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and his Committee have done us a signal service by introducing this debate. In an intervention on the Minister, the hon. Gentleman referred pointedlyand with relevance and accuracy, which the Government should acknowledgeto crucial issues relating to qualified majority voting and absolute majorities in respect of the subject we are discussing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who was one of the two negotiators on behalf of this Parliament on the future of the EU, is only too well aware of such issues.
	European critical infrastructureECIdegradation is covered by the proposals; the EU should govern matters if at least two members are affected, it is said. It is suggested that a European plan for critical infrastructure protectionEPCIPshould be drawn up which will identify, among other things, critical infrastructure and produce a common approach to its protection and information sharing.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to a voluntary approach. He will knowthis follows from his earlier remarksthat there are security assets and facilities both in this country and in other countries that we would prefer not to declare, for security reasons. Is he aware that under the draft directive we would have to declare not only those assets, but draw up and operate a security plan and appoint a security liaison officer, all of which would presumably be public? Would it not be a grave threat to our internal security if all of that were known as provided for under a directive, and if the final arbiter of that were the European Court of Justice?

Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend points to a matter that I hope will be thoroughly negotiated out of these documents by the Minister.  [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that my right hon. Friend is wrong. Well, my right hon. Friend has referred directly to the document in question.  [Interruption.] He is now holding it up for the Minister's edification. I shall allow my right hon. Friend and the Minister to have private discussions behind the Speaker's Chair, but the point that my right hon. Friend makes is entirely valid. There are assets and infrastructures that we own nationally and there are assets and infrastructures that we jointly own or in respect of which we are tenants in common through, for example, NATO and certain aspects of the EU, and which should not become the subject of open-air discussion. It alarms me to think that our foreign policy and our counter-terrorism policy might be subjected to debate or decision of the ECJ, and I trust that that also alarms the Minister.
	As I have said, it is suggested in the documents that a European plan for critical infrastructure protection should be drawn up and that it should identify, among other things, critical infrastructure and produce a common approach to its protection and information sharing. That is of relevance to the point my right hon. Friend made a moment ago. I might have misunderstood the nature of EU critical infrastructure while at the same time having a clear understanding of the delicate nature of our own national infrastructure, but it seems to meI do not mean to sound complacent, as no one could be so given the attacks on our country over the past 40 yearsthat as we are an island we might have some geographical protection from attacks on other EU states' water systems, electricity grids, telephone and communications systems and key Government services.
	That point is not a case of relying on the sentiment behind the pre-war London newspaper headline, Fog over channel: Europe cut off, but I understand that in continental Europe other factors might apply. The Benelux countries, France and Germany, France and Italy, France and Spain and the Baltic countriesto give just a few obvious exampleswill have integrated infrastructures that far outstretch the examples that apply to the United Kingdom, such as the channel tunnel, the shipping traffic between the UK and Europe, and the services shared by Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned the channel tunnel. It is a subject that will cause some debate. From one point of view the channel tunnel looks like a bilateral infrastructure between France and the UK, but the manufacturers of, for example, Belgium, Italy or Spain who wish to export goods from their country to ours via road or rail might say that it affects more than two countries within the EU, and that therefore it is an EU infrastructure asset which ought to come under the control of the directives. I foresee endless discussion in dark committee rooms in Europe of such matters.
	Of course, we know that attacks on food supplies, or attacks on, or interference with, the internet and electronic communication systems or the banking and financial sectors at a strategic level can have a cross-border effect, regardless of whether they are the result of terrorist activity or natural causes such as storms and floods. To destroy the London stock exchange is to damage the global trade in financial instruments; to poison the Rhine is to damage the natural environmentriver, sea and land basedin many countries; and to corrupt the immigration authorities of one member state will have a knock-on effect on other EU states. However, I question whether we need to raise the need for sensible, thoughtful, well planned international co-operation at a multilateral or bilateral level to the level of having an EU institution with all the expenditure, directives, regulations and bureaucracyand infrastructurethat these documents urge upon us.
	How, for example, do we define whether a particular piece of infrastructure is critical to the EU as a whole, or to at least two states, or only to one? We cannot do that without creating endless directives following endless committee meetings in several locations, at which the representatives of member state Governments and the Commission argue about whether country A's sewerage system is of European significance whereas country B's telephone system is only of national significance.
	The documents tell us that EPCIP
	will be an ongoing process.
	We need have no doubt of that. We are also told that its action plan will have three work streams, that there will be a critical infrastructure warning information network or CIWIN, and that there will be expert groups. There will be a CIPcritical infrastructure protectioninformation-sharing process and an identification of interdependencies. There will be national critical infrastructures, contingency planning and an external dimension, and there will be an all hazard approachwhich would be a fitting description of the present jostling for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour party.
	There is no doubt that those matters, when stripped of the jargon, are sensible things to think about and deal with, but I am concerned that we should not as a country or a Government allow ourselves to be distracted with yet further EU navel gazing when we have plenty to do at home to provide better national security of all types and when there is so much that we can do bilaterally and multilaterally in discrete areas to protect our vital infrastructures.
	Terrorism, even outside the confines of the Crevice trial, is universally to be condemned and all of us, in and out of the EU, must take steps to prevent it and to create conditions that do not allow it to thrive or to take hold. However, we should not allow these documents and the policies that lie behind them to dilute our resources and efforts, no matter that we are acutely aware that an approach that goes beyond terrorism is in other jurisdictions appropriate, and more immediately so.
	Our primary, if not our total, focus must be on counter-terrorism and on protecting our constitutional framework, national institutions and liberties, as citizens of this parliamentary democracy. We must have the confidence to realise and understand that, despite the attacks we have seen from the IRA, al-Qaeda and so-called animal rights activists, the systems of Government, Parliament and local authorities and our emergency and public services are resilient and robust and, more importantly, democratically accountable. I do not denigrate the motives behind the policies outlined in these documents, but I do question their utility.
	I urge the Government to be strong in their EU discussions, and to ensure that we arrive at a scheme that is relevant, proportionate and cost-effective. The concerns outlined by the Minister, which we share, should be taken on board by his counterparts when he travels to Europe to meet them.

Michael Connarty: I have to tell the Minister that my one disappointment with the motion is that, at a time when there is so much to be negotiated and so much is left unanswered in our correspondenceand will remain unanswered even after today's debateit does not simply say that we take note of the documents and of the Government's position. Rather, it says that this House
	supports the Government's intention to secure adoption of these documents in Council, subject to a satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns.
	Despite the work of my European Scrutiny Committee, which took this issue very seriously, and the Minister's original, very detailed explanatory memorandum of 12 February, there remain many unknowns regarding what the Government will cede. They have certainly moved from their original position when we first looked at the directive, having, of course, considered the Green Paper for almost two years. In the explanatory memorandum of 19 February, they seemed to be adopting a firm position. However, a letter of 9 March to the Committee in response to our further inquiries appeared to indicate what I define as Government slidea phenomenon that I have noticed repeatedly through my work on the Committee. That is in contrast to the original directive, which was an example of Commission creep. The Commission wants to creep into power; meanwhile, between 19 February and 9 March the Government appear to have shifted position, and to now be willing in their negotiations to slide out of power.
	I come to the reasons why the Committee wanted this issue to be debated on the Floor of the House. Our main concern was that what is proposed is the adoption of a legally binding European Council directive in what we consider a sensitive field. We felt that this was legally doubtful and questionable in principle. Our second concern was the extensive role that the Commission has allocated to itself. As has been said, neither the so-called counter-terrorism co-ordinator's name nor his position was included in the Commission's proposal. It intends that it shall put together a committee of the Commission to oversee this process. That concerned us greatly.
	The third problem is that there is not just a possibility but a probability of the extension of Community competence into the field of national security. There is no doubt that if that proposal goes ahead, it will affect bilateral agreements and infrastructures; in fact, it is Commission creep into the field of national security. We felt that that proposal should not be agreed to before being debated in the House.
	In the February explanatory memorandum, the Minister discussed the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, which will probably be referred to for ever by Eurocrats as EPCIP; as a result, no one will know what it means. The memorandum recognised that bilateral co-operation between states was to be encouraged, but we shared the Government's concern, which they expressed strongly, that EPCIP should not cover bilateral arrangements. In that regard, the Government referred to the channel tunnel and to cross-border co-operation between the UK and Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said.
	Our Committee felt that there was no reason for the Commission to be involved in these matters. However, its starting point was that bilateral agreements were not outwith EPCIP. The Government are resisting that view, but they are asking us today to approve their signing up to the document, subject to negotiations. However, the Minister has said nothing today that would satisfy my Committee that lines in the sand have been drawn that we will not allow the Commission to cross. That is very worrying, given that we have been asked not just to note that the Government are negotiating, but to support them.
	We have debated this issue and we have given the House its best chance to influence the Government. The Government will then be left to negotiate whatever they wish to negotiate at the final stage in the European Council.

Edward Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman find this situation perhaps a little disappointing? Assuming that his Committee had reached a completely different conclusion from the content of the documents and had advised the House to vote against the take note motion, it would have made little difference. The Government are independently able to carry on doing what they think best, irrespective of the advice of his Committee.

Michael Connarty: I hope that we do not get to the point of voting. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that when we say we support them, we support them. Hopefully, the House will support them too, on the basis that the motion includes the phrase
	subject to a satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns.
	Those concerns are those expressed in February's explanatory memorandum, and not the weaker position that, sadly, seemed to be indicated by the Government's strong support for proceeding with the directive, as expressed in the letter of 9 March. As I said, we sensed Government slide, of which the explanatory memorandum gave no indication. I hope that the Government will vigorously defend their position as outlined in the February explanatory memorandum, and that they will not perform an about-turn on any of these issues when they enter into negotiations.
	The Committee also asked whether the adoption of the directive is necessary or justified. The arguments for a legally binding directive under the terms of article 308 of the European Community treaty are unconvincing. We studied that article extensively and we will publish a report on it shortly. We are clear that in our view, there is no need for legally binding rules in the sensitive area of designating infrastructure; however, and as I pointed out, that is what will happen. The Government said that they want the proposal to be dealt with through commitology, and in such a way that it is passed by qualified majority voting in the Council. If there was a dispute, the matter would then be ruled on by the European Court of Justice. Our Government would be unable to go against that ruling, and they could be forced into positions that they did not originally wish to adopt, and to which they did not originally think that they had ceded.
	We believe that it is wrong for the Commission to be allowed to use infraction procedures in respect of any European country, and particularly this one, which has a highly developed national security policy. However, the Commission would go to the European Court of Justice if there were any dispute. Why could the objective of creating a common procedure for designating critical infrastructure not have been achieved by voluntary co-operation between member states? That is how we have advanced in the past. It is a good idea to have guidelines, benchmarks and some form of sanctions or penalties. It is also a good idea to have incentives throughout the EU. We may have reservations about some of the countries in the EU and their ability to meet the standards, but we should be aiding and abetting them, not giving power to the Commission to rule over our standards in the future.
	We will always dispute with the Government, the Commission and the Council the legal basis of article 308, because on many issues it has nothing to do with the common market. Our Committee was certainly concerned by the throw-away lines about competitiveness and cost at the end of certain sections, so that it could be argued that it was a competition question: it is not. It is a justification for using an original clause that was entirely about the common market to force through several items so that the Commission gets its way.
	We questioned the consequences of adopting a legally binding European directive on this issue in our report on 21 March. We were worried that it would lead to unpredictable legal obligations being imposed on the UK. The Minister questioned the definition of European critical infrastructure, the disclosure of information, and the legal obligations imposed to produce operator security plans and appoint security liaison officers. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government appeared to take a firm stand against all of those issues, but each would fall to be determined and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. In other words, every objection that the Government have put up could be overruled by the ECJ. That could happen if the Commission took infraction proceedings against a Government who are resisting the imposition of the Commission's will, which could lead to very unpredictable results. We question whether the Government should make any concessions that would take risks in that area. In security terms, we need to be firm, to be sure of our ground, to know where our authority lies, to know that we can call on that authority at any time and that it has not been given to another party. That is another reason why we wanted the debate.
	The Minister confirmed that the adoption of the European directive would affect the UK's ability to conclude agreements with third-party countriesthe question asked in this debate todayfor example, with the United States. It is clear that giving competence to the Commission means ceding competence from one's own Government to make agreements without the permission of the Commission. We have always thought that that was an unnecessary downside to any agreement to give power on issues on which we should retain it. Unless the Minister is telling us that that is a clear red line and he will not sign up to the directive unless there is clear agreement that the UK can conclude agreements with non-EU countries on a bilateral basis, we would be taking a grave risk.
	The Minister has told the Committee that it is not considered that the directive would affect the UK's ability to make agreements with third-party countries on the exchange of information and techniques for protecting infrastructure, but he did not provide the authority for that conclusion in any correspondence. A matter that would fall to be determined by the ECJ is one of the imponderables. We do not know whether the ECJ would rule that we still had that power or did not have that power. The question for my Committee was: why put the present freedom and power of the UK to make agreements with third parties at risk by adopting the directive?
	After eight years as a member of the Committee, and five years as a member of a Standing Committee before that, I know that entering into such legal obligations may have unpredictable results in the future. Why should Britain risk our present freedom to make bilateral security arrangements and decide what sensitive information we choose to share? I have not heard any argument as to why we should give up either of those two vital powers. I cannot see what the UK can possibly gain by accepting the directive, and that was the unanimous view of the Committee across all parties.

William Cash: I am a member of the Committee and I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. However, does he accept that sometimes the Government have a tendency, when they know that something has a European character to it, to be too relaxed about allowing things that they would do better to resist?

Michael Connarty: On this occasion, I fundamentally agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government do not need to do this. It would strengthen the European Union as a body if it resisted it and renegotiated a different arrangement under which countries that had problems with their infrastructure, and questionable security and capacity, entered into agreements guided, aided and controlled by the Commission. Those countries that have the competence, as the UK and many others already have, to look after their own security, could agree a set of guidelines, standards and aspirations that they could try to match, but it would not need to be binding. That would be a much stronger EU agreement. It would focus on where assistance is required and stop the Commission interfering where it is not needed. I can assure the Minister that the Commission will use its power whenever it can, just to show that it is in charge. It wants to be in charge of, not assisting on, many issues on which it would be better not to be involved.
	Why do we need legally binding rules designating what infrastructure is critical to a member state? It was an expressed concern of the Minister in the explanatory memorandum, but I have heard no indication that their imposition will be resisted to the point at which we will not sign the directive. The Minister asks us to support him signing the directive, but we are not sure what negotiating points could stall that signature. I hope that he will tell us that much more clearly and leave the House, and those who read the report of this debate, with some security. Why could the objective of creating a common procedure for designating critical infrastructure not have been achieved by voluntary co-operation between the member states? I have heard no answer to that question.
	My conclusion is that the legislation might lead to an extension of European community competence into the field of national security. That should not be agreed until the House has had a chance to debate it and is convinced that vital safeguards for the UK's sovereign national security would not be ceded to the Commission. I would like the Minister to assure us that when he goes to the negotiations, he will not sign up to the directive until he can convince the House that he did not cede too much on the issue of our national security.

Simon Hughes: The House certainly has highs and lows. We have had the high drama, intensity and complete transparency of Prime Minister's questions, and then we come to this debate, which isunless one has engaged with the subject matterprobably miles from the immediate thoughts of most people. I came to the subject fresh, because it would normally fall to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) to participate in this debate, but he cannot be here today. I looked at the issue from first principles and have ended up with a huge amount of reading over the last week. Thanks to my keen and enthusiastic assistant, I understand the issues at least to some degree.
	I am glad that we are having this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that it is right that we should have a European Scrutiny Committee and that it is able to say, as it did on this issue, when something is legally and politically important and should be debated on the Floor of the House. The numbers present may be small, but that is related more to other factors in the British political firmament than to the importance of the issue.
	This is an important issue because we are talking about what used to be called emergency planning. Everyone realises now that local government needs to undertake emergency planning, for all the sad but familiar reasons. When the Greater London authority was set up, there was a long debate about the arrangements in London. Similar debates about how to keep the capital and the country safe took place after 9/11, and such questions are back on the agenda after the events of July a couple of years ago.
	Emergency planning is the Government's rightful responsibility, and the Home Office has traditionally taken the lead in its work with other Departments. I understand the Minister when he says that he is not at liberty to share some information to do with planning in respect of terrorist threats to our infrastructure.
	Some threats have been evident for years. For example, the IRA attacked Canary Wharf as it was being built, and we have heard about the plans to attack the Ministry of Sound night club in my constituency. However, I am talking about something differentthat is, threats to the sewerage system, or to the water or gas supply. Those are important matters, and I am glad that the House has an opportunity to express its views.

William Cash: In our report, we state:
	We have considerable misgivings over the adoption of an EC directive in this area.
	Our function is to judge whether something is of legal or political importance. We go on to say that we believe the directive to be
	of doubtful legality and questionable in principle. We note that the proposal is made under Article 308 EC, but it does not appear to us that a measure which is concerned essentially with the national security of Member States is a matter falling within the EC treaty at all, and still less under article 308.
	I hope to make a few remarks later on about article 308. However, even though he has come to the job rather late in the day, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the matter is very serious? There is no need for hysteria, but does he agree that it has implications for national security?

Simon Hughes: I do agree about that, and I want to deal next with article 308. It states:
	If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.
	In June 2004, the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to come up with a proposal in respect of EU infrastructure. In other words, the bureaucrats did not initiate this, the politicians did. The Council of Ministers is free to say that it is not going to agree the Commission proposal, with the result that the whole thing has come round full circle and the matter is up for negotiation. The Government will take note of this debate, in the way that our procedures allow, but they also have the right under article 8 to veto the outcome. If the UK decides that the proposal should be taken no further, it can act alone to prevent that from happening.
	Does article 308 justify the motion before us? The House of Lords Committee that looked at this matter said that we should not get fixated by article 308 and that we should look at the substance of the motion. The advice that I have been given is that Parliament has accepted similar measures proposed under article 308, and I look forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee.
	These are serious matters. Article 308 is the EU's instrument to cover anything else extra, and we must be careful to ensure that what it is used to introduce is justified. I am not going to argue that the proposals before us cannot work under article 308, although I notice that the European Scrutiny Committee believes that the Government have not made their case about that.
	I come now to the substance of the motion. The Minister was helpful in his responses to interventions, and I want to pick up on a couple of matters that he mentioned. He made it clear that the proposal is justified only if we are talking about matters that are European, critical and to do with infrastructure. That may be a tautology, but it is true. However, I want to put it on record that I share what I believe is the common view of the House about last December's draft directive definition of EU critical infrastructures. It states:
	'European Critical Infrastructure' means critical infrastructures the disruption or destruction of which would significantly affect two or more Member States, or a single Member State if the critical infrastructure is located in another Member State.
	We believe that that provision is too generous, as it is not sufficient that only two member states are affected. Earlier, I gave the example of the UK and Ireland. We have a common interest in some matters, especially in respect of Northern Ireland, and other bilateral agreements cover energy, transport and so on.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned the much more interesting debate to be had about whether the Eurotunnel involves two member states or more than two. I believe that disruption to the Eurotunnel would significantly affect more than two member states. For instance, the tunnel goes to Belgium as well as to France, but disruption would have onward consequences for the transport of goods throughout the EU. That would mean that more than three countries would have an interest, and that is why we need a higher threshold than just two member states.
	I also agree that the UK occupies a position that is entirely different from the one occupied by many other countries. For instance, the Benelux countries share many aspects of infrastructure, and a new member state such as Poland may well get some power from the Czech Republic, or vice versa. Countries that are adjacent territorially, with no water between them, are much more likely to share elements of infrastructure, transport and so on. Indeed, that is likely to be common, and the situation between the UK and Ireland, or Cyprus and Malta, is likely to be much less common. I therefore hope that Ministers will negotiate a higher threshold.
	The motion asks us to support
	the Government's intention to secure adoption of these documents in Council, subject to a satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns.
	That is rather a catch-all wordingand I am being generous to the Minister by saying so. It more or less says that the Government have made a request, the Commission has made a proposal, and this is how far we have got. The motion then asks the House to give the nod to further negotiations to secure a satisfactory outcome. To be blunt, a lot of work remains to be done, and the Minister is right to suggest that it is unlikely to be completed in June, especially as we are already in May.
	I want to make a couple of final points. Earlier, we had an interesting discussion about the fact that the motion deals with something theoretical, but it was clear that the House was also interested in the specifics. It is important to realise that much work has been done in some sectors, as listed in the supporting papers provided by the European Commission. For instance, work has been done in the IT sector on public electronic communications networks, and in the health sector on epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases.
	Work has also been done in the financial sector on euro retail payment systems. Such matters can be seen as part of the infrastructure, as the sudden collapse of the ability to perform bank transactions across Europe would have implications for the financial sector, in which London has a huge interest. Work has been done in the transport sector on ship and port facility security, maritime security and civil aviation security. It is not as though nothing has been done.
	There are many bilateral aspects already, and clearly the Government have thought about them. The Home Office is in the lead, but the issues are cross-governmental; the critical infrastructure sectors listed in the annexe show how broad they areenergy, nuclear industry, ICT, water, food, health, financial matters, transport, chemical industry, space and research facilities. That substantive list shows that the matter is at a slightly higher macro-level than the provision of public toilets across the EUalthough I realise that the Minister was joking. Like him, I have been involved in London politics for many years. We have not yet got the provision of public facilities in London sorted, so we can hardly teach anybody else how to do it. There is work to be done much nearer home.
	The proposal is that if there were a directive it would include non-binding and binding measures. That mix is probably right if we can reach agreement about the binding measuresby definition, it would then be up to us to opt into the others rather than being committed to them. Colleagues in the Lords who have studied the proposal from their perspective as Members of the European Parliament warn us that we must not get into an over-bureaucratic system. The current proposal seems far too extensive, complex and bureaucratic. To take one example, there may be a need for participation in
	critical information protection expert groups at EU level
	but that simply means that it would be good to have somebody from each country who knows what they are talking about and can work out what we need to do. That is sensible and civil servants should be working on that aspect. Information-sharing is good, but we must do it in the least bureaucratic and most practical way possible.
	I end with the conclusion we have already reached. Most of the specific proposals appear perfectly feasible through co-operation, information exchange and best practice. That seems to cover most of the needs and expectations. Subsidiarity and proportionality mean that we should not try to give the EU more functions and responsibility than it needs. We must do what we can in this country. The UK, as a group of islands, is more likely to resolve these matters nationally than on a cross-EU basis, but if there is a need for legislationafter all, a directive is EU legislation, with which we have to complypeople have to make a case for it.
	If the measure is on the agenda, it is because Governments have asked for it to be there because they were worried about terrorism or the risk to European energy supplies. As the Minister said in his intervention, this is not only about our people in this country; Britons are working, living and studying all over the EU, as are people from all the other EU countries. We have a collective responsibility to look after the European Union countries properly, but only inasmuch as it needs to be done on a more than national or more than bilateral level should it be a matter for the EU. I hope that Ministers will proceed accordingly and negotiate only a measure that is simple, straightforward and the minimum required to deliver the perfectly reasonable objectives that they asked the Commission to consider a few years ago.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I make a small apology. I have only recently been appointed to the European Scrutiny Committee and was not party to its discussions. However, I have read the paper prepared for the debate and I have listened carefully to the speeches of other Members. They very much reflect my own feelings; there seems to be consensus that we must take a much firmer line with the Commission and the Council of Ministers, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in his typically robust way, will do so. I hope that he will take particular note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, because he went to the nub of the issue.
	The Minister's first response to the communication was robust. He stated that
	responsibility for national critical infrastructure is a national responsibility and, secondly, that protection of European Critical Infrastructure is the responsibility of the Member State within which the infrastructure is located.
	That strong statement seemed to have the Committee's support, but when a series of questions was put to the Minister in writing, his response was less robust. I thought that perhaps someone had toned down his replies, because they did not want them to be too non-communautaire.
	I have had some experience of European committees in Brusselsalthough not at the elevated level of the Council of Ministersso I know about the style; one does not raise issues strongly. One listens to the reports and then goes awaypossibly for a splendid Brussels lunch. However, in my time I was one of the awkward squad, who always asked the difficult questions in what seemed to be regarded as the British way; we say, Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but isn't there a problem? and other people look round in surprise that anybody should have raised an issue.
	I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will be one of the awkward squad and that he will raise the issues that have been set out in the debate and speak robustly not just for Britain's interests but for common sense, which suggests that many of the areas covered by the phrase critical infrastructure are not that criticalat least to Europe as a whole, although they might be critical for the interests of a particular nation state. Some things are critical and of serious interest; for example, nuclear power generation poses appalling risks to life if things go wrong, so there is clearly an international interest in it. We are heavily dependent on the supply of gas from Russia via a pipeline going through Germany, so we should take a great interest in that. With other Members, I recently attended a meeting in the House at which a German academic read a paper that suggested that Germany was working closely with Russia to make sure that gas went through Germany, because the Germans wanted to maintain a strong interest in the control of the gas supply. As we saw, Russia made life uncomfortable for Ukraine over gas supplies, so those aspects of critical infrastructure give rise to serious issues in which we and our European colleagues have an interest.
	The key is to make sure that there is a hierarchy of risk and interests, but we should not get into deep water overshall we say?water, which is much more of a national provision. By and large, water is not transported between nation states, certainly not to Britain. Although the Welsh might complain that they are supplying water to us in England, we are stillI thinkthe same nation state. Some aspects can be put to one side, because they should not be covered. I have mentioned the areas of interest.
	The proposals make a powerful case for nation states such as Britain to generate as much of their own energy as possible and to become less dependent on supplies from other parts of the world that are sometimes unstable and may not be friendly towards us in future. There is a powerful case for generating electricity safely and securely through tidal barrages, especially across the Severn and Thames estuaries, offshore wind farms, microgeneration and combined heat and power. Locally supplied generation and microgeneration is much less vulnerable to the risks we have been debating. Europe-wide structures for energy are much more vulnerable than local, domestic and microgeneration. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) speaks on the subject frequently and he is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of looking to renewable sources, and I urge Ministers especially to consider those that are local, micro, national and less vulnerable. Perhaps that goes rather wider of the debate than you might wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is an important issue.
	I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister coming back from Europe having secured a common-sense agreement, having got positive answers to all the issues raised here and by the European Scrutiny Committee, and having spoken for the British national interest and for common sense.

William Cash: As I indicated in an intervention on the Chairman of the Committee earlier, to a certain extent my concern turns on the manner in which these decisions tend to get taken by Government. I am not going to engage in a hostile confrontation with the Minister over this matter. As much as anything, it is a matter of attitude. The problem is as follows. Albeit that in 2004 the Council of Ministers asked for these questions to be considered, the reality is that in terms of the critical mass of the institutional changes, the attitude of mindwhich is that everything should be Europeanised because that is the nature of the underlying concept of the European constitution, which has by no means been given upmeans that all matters and questions of legal capacity have to be decided against the background of an assumption. That assumption is that if a choice has to be made, it would be better made at a European level than otherwise.
	There is also the issue of terrorism, which the Committee has stressed in this context, noting the fact that it had not been dealt with properly in relation to the role of the European Union counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Mr. de Vries, who was brought into the issue somewhat late in the day. The fact is that there are often decisionsparticularly in relation to matters of national securitywhere the question of why something is being done is in lower case. It is something that emerges only in the course of a debate of this kind. Of course, it is precisely because the European Scrutiny Committee is so diligent and accurate in its analysisgiven our expert advisers and legal advisersthat we are in a position to be able to challenge the assumptions on which things otherwise would simply roll forward. For example, in some other countriesthe Minister might take note of this [ Interruption. ] The Minister is wandering around the House like a caged lion. I do not know whether he is a lion or a mouse.

Tony McNulty: I was speaking to the Deputy Speaker. I was not prowling about like any sort of lion.

William Cash: The Minister might find it quite useful to hear some of the arguments

Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No. The Minister might find it quite useful to listen to some of the arguments of those of us who have a little more experience than he does of some of these matters and the way in which the European Union has functioned. The plain fact is that the question of creeping competence, of which this matter is a good example, is the reason why not I by myself as the Member for Stone on his own, but the whole of the European Scrutiny Committeethe majority whose members come from the Minister's own partyhas come to the conclusion that it is important that this matter should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Committee has come to that conclusion responsibly and on the basis of considered advice.
	I understand the restlessness of the Minister, but it would not do him much harm to listen to what is being said. Wandering around in that way clearly indicated that he was not interested in a word that was being uttered. He might just bear in mind that we are talking about national security and about the failure of the Government to be completely transparent about the connection between the proposals and terrorism. The bottom line is that the use of article 308in relation to which the Minister says that protecting critical infrastructure
	will further a number of Community objectives
	is an example of the very point that I am making. A gap is being filled in order to enhance the Europeanisation of this issue, which is of direct importance, as the Committee says in its report, to the fundamental question of national security. If we do not control our own national security, the Government are betraying this country in the context of what the Committee recommended. We on the Committee said:
	We consider that these issues are of such importance to the fundamental duty of any government to ensure national security that they ought to be debated on the Floor of the House and we so recommend.
	We are debating the issues. The Minister knows in advance that there will not be a Division on this question, so, as I said before, he might just as well have given us a better explanation of the basis on which a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding concerns will be delivered. Time is running out, so I want to get on the record [ Interruption. ] I was unable to be here then, but I know enough about the subject matterand I am on the Committeeto know that the issue is of great importance, which is why we are debating it.
	When we are talking about things such as the channel tunnel and other things that are susceptible to terrorist attacks, it does not matter what the Government may wish to put forward by way of an argument that the issues should be dealt with at the European level. Those issues are essentially a matter of national security. As we say in our report, it is a fundamental necessity that we retain control over these matters. That is why we want them to be debated. There is no need for me to go into all the detail. I am sure that the civil servants and the members of the European Commission will look at that. The important and simple point is that the Government, as usual
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair , pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16932/06, Commission Communication on a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, and No. 16933/06 and ADDs 1-2, Draft Council Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection; and supports the Government's intention to secure adoption of these documents in Council, subject to a satisfactory resolution of outstanding concerns.

WELFARE REFORM BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Welfare Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th July 2006, in the last Session of Parliament, 12th October 2006 and 9th January 2007 (Welfare Reform Bill (Programme), Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2) and Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 3)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Welfare Reform Bill

Lords amendments considered.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 1.

Jim Murphy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 55.

Jim Murphy: I am pleased to report to the House that just as the Bill left this place in a good condition, with a strong consensus, that approach was maintained in the other place, where all of those with a keen interest in this important issue played an important part in helping to maintain that consensus. There has been continued engagement with stakeholders, disability organisations and others. It is fair to say at the outset that that has been assisted by the consensus approach across political parties in this and the other place. The one exception is the Scottish National party, which played no role whatsoever in our proceedings at any part of the process. Indeed, today SNP Members have not shown up to their work.
	There are five areas of the Bill and its policy aims that are the subject of amendment. I would like to talk about each briefly in turn. First, I will talk about the issue of the annual report on the operation of the revised personal capability assessment. Amendment No. 1 concerns the operation of the new benefit, the employment and support allowance. The amendment introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay an annual independent report before Parliament on the operation of the revised personal capability assessment.
	As I previously confirmed, it has always been our intention that there should be ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the revised PCA. I gave an undertaking on Report that there would be ongoing independent monitoring by the technical working groups for the first two years following implementation of the revised assessment. My noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton gave a similar undertaking in the other place and made a further commitment that monitoring would continue for the first five years following implementation and report to Parliament. That is reflected by the duration of reporting required by the amendment.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2, 13, 15, 16 and 55 relate to health care professionals other than doctors carrying out a medical examination to provide information used in making a decision on entitlement to benefits. From the outset, the Bill provided for the use of heath care professionals in assessments for ESA. However, shortly after the Bill left the Commons, it became clear that the current legislation did not include the power to make full use of health care professionals in the provision of medical services for customers claiming other benefits, such as disability living allowance, attendance allowance and industrial injuries benefits. Lords amendment No. 13 will enable us to take full advantage of the skills that health care professionals offer in the delivery of medical services for purposes involving social security benefits.
	Lords amendment No. 2 will commit us to using only health care professionals who are members of regulated professions. It gives a consistent definition of a health care professional across the benefit system. All health care professionals will, of course, be given full training. They will need to be approved by the Secretary of State before they are able to carry out assessments. Lords amendment No. 55 will ensure that all health care professionals carrying out medical examinations will be bound by the same duties of confidentiality as departmental staff with respect to information about individual customers.
	Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7 relate to the contracting out of welfare to work services. They will ensure that the Secretary of State cannot authorise a contractor to undertake decision making that could lead to sanctions under the ESA conditionality regime. The Government made such amendments to the Bill in response to concerns expressed about the possible problems associated with the contracting out of sanctions decision making. While, of course, there are potential advantages in moving decision making closer to front-line services, we accept that there is more to be done before we will be aware of how that will work in practice. We will thus not take such a power in the Bill.
	The fourth group of amendments covers sanctioning following an eviction for antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment No. 9 relates to the housing benefit sanction following an eviction for antisocial behaviour and a refusal to accept support. We believe that the sanction will be an important power for local authorities to use in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. The amendment provides for a limit to the piloting period. The Government will thus be allowed to press ahead with piloting the scheme, but if there is to be a scheme in place after 31 December 2010, further primary legislation will be required.
	We have made a commitment that piloting will be a key element of our plans. If the measure works as we intend and the threat of sanctions encourages antisocial households and families to engage in support programmes, the end date of 31 December 2010 that is specified in the amendment will mean that we will have sufficient time to learn lessons that could inform national design and possible implementation.
	The fifth group is, by necessity, made up of technical drafting amendments. The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported on the Bill and we tabled appropriate amendments following those reports. Lords amendments Nos. 8, 22 and 23 will mean that the regulations that will be made under the identified powers relating to entitlement to components and the loss of benefit will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 make it explicit that the powers in clause 40 relating to the use of social security information are to be used solely to encourage people to claim the benefits to which they may be entitled.
	Lords amendment No. 17 to schedule 3 will ensure that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to review the relevant ESA amounts in each tax year to determine whether they have retained their value. Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 54 will amend schedule 4 to provide a power to migrate those with an existing award of a benefit relating to incapacity or disability to ESA. The amendments do not affect the policy position that we have taken previously on the migration of existing customers.
	I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments to this important Bill. During the Bill's passage, we have managed to maintain a remarkable degree of well-considered consensus between both sides of the House. Together we can be confident that the Bill will make a real and lasting change to the lives of many people who were written off for so long in the past.

David Ruffley: I welcome the Minister's remarks. The modern Conservative party supported the principles of the Bill, the details of which required non-partisan, thorough and vigilant scrutiny in Committee here and in another place. I believe that it has been given such scrutiny. It has been hugely assisted by the advice, wisdom and insight of many groups and bodies that work hard and tirelessly to help those who need the support of a modern welfare state. I pay tribute to them as the passage of the Bill draws to its close.
	The key purpose of Lords amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the scrutiny of the Bill's operation continues long after it has been passed. The requirement for annual reports will put Ministers to the test when they explain how the new ESA is benefitingas we hope and trust that it willmany claimants who are able to work, but need support to get back into work. We know that many such people want to work. A welcome improvement was made to the Bill in the other placeLord McKenzie was the Ministerthrough the insertion of a provision requiring the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual independent report on the operation of the limited capability for work test and the limited capability for work-related activity assessment for the first five years after they came into effect.
	I welcome the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform's decision not to disagree with that proposition of the Lords. However, it is important that we underscore concerns that are being expressed by outside bodies about the new PCA. There is worry that the early stages of the design of the PCA have, albeit in a well-meaning way, been subject to dummy runs. It is clear we must get right something as important as a gateway to a new incapacity benefitESAbecause it will affect millions of people. The Government have promised that the PCA will be rigorously evaluated. The Minister has explained that a two-part evaluation is being carried out to ensure that the revised PCA constitutes a fair, robust and evidence-based assessment of limited capability for work. However, we must be vigilant. We believe that the annual reporting requirement will deliver rigorous scrutiny.

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Even at this stage, it is important to reassure him and others who consider our proceedings carefully. The revised PCA test seems to be working as expected. However, to clarify intentions, there has been a need to refine some of the wording of physical function descriptors and mental health function descriptors. Some of the scores also have to be refined, so it is clear that we are learning as we go on. In the spirit of co-operation that has existed throughout the passage of the Bill, I will be happy to continue to share such information with the hon. Gentleman, as will the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), the Minister for disabled people, who has played a remarkable role in the formulation of the policy over the past few months.

David Ruffley: I thank the Minister for that. I associate myself with his charitable and generous comments about the work of the Under-Secretary. It was a delight to debate matters with her in Committee, and I think that our debates generated a lot of light. It is important to remind ourselves as proceedings on the Bill draw to a close of the critical importance of the PCA and the vital need to ensure that its operation is not just looked at over a long period of five years but is evaluated annually. The disability benefits consortium has made the point that genuine evaluation must include examination of whether the assessment of capability to work was accurate, as it does not believe that there is a check to achieve that objective under the current arrangements. It suggests that health or social care providers who know the claimant could be asked whether they believe the new score to be a fair assessment, and it asks whether that could be designed into the new PCA. It says that claimants themselves could be asked whether they agree with their new score, and that members of the PCA could be asked to convene technical groups to interview people who are disqualified by the new PCA, but who qualified under the old PCA, to gain a fuller sense of whether they should, or should not, be considered to have limited capability for work.
	Ministers may find it difficult to accept those propositions, but they are an example of the way in which an iterative process must be used when officials and practitioners at the sharp end implement the new test. We must always have an eagle eye and constantly evaluate the impact of the measures on claimants. The Minister, and Ministers generally, do not regard the new PCA as a draconian measure to choke off the flow of future employment and support allowance claimants, and I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have not used the macho rhetoric of the stick. Ministers, no more than the rest of us, want claimants, past, present and future, to be intimidated by the language that the welfare state uses about their future. I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions or those of future Ministers. The Minister mightwho knows?be moved onward and upward in the impending summer Government reshuffle in recognition of his great work on welfare reform. Whoever occupies his seat will want sensitive application and implementation of the new PCA, but annual, independent evaluation is required. A key reason is that problems may be discovered in the first year, new problems may be discovered in the second year, and yet more problems may be discovered in the third year, so in their lordships' viewand in my view, tooit is essential that a rigorous, independent annual evaluation is conducted.
	We accept that the Government have listened to those entreaties in another place, and that they are going to undertake qualitative evaluations. Research studies are undertaken anyway by the Department for Work and Pensions, the rollout of pathways to work is being evaluated, and academic research is accessed on top of that. We accept that all those things were going to be done anywayLord McKenzie made that pointbut the amendment makes provision to pull everything together in a single annual report, and stops a piecemeal analysis with bits and pieces all over the shop. It ensures rigorous, regular scrutiny of that important test.
	The Minister referred to Lords amendment No. 2, which clarifies the Bill's wording to ensure that it includes a tighter, more specific definition of a health care professional. There were concerns that the original definition was too broad and that less than qualified people would fall into the category of health care professionals and be allowed to carry out medical examinations. It was thought that that would affect only a small minority of individuals. Nevertheless, the disability benefits consortium was surely right to welcome the amendment, which specifies the staff who may carry out a work-focused health-related assessment of a disabled person's ability to engage in work-related activity and the kinds of adaptation and support they may need to enable them to undertake such activity. It went on to say that concern had been expressed by disabled people and those who represent them that unsuitably trained staff with relatively little experience of disability and health-related issues might be used. However, the amendment specifies the professionals qualified to undertake interviews, and that will provide important reassurance to disabled people who go through that gateway in future and who are assessed under the new process.
	We support, too, Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to clause 15. They remove from the Bill the ability to contract out decision making leading to sanctions. The category of excluded decisions includes all the decisions that can lead to sanctions, as well as decisions about the sanction itself. As a result of the amendments, decisions on sanctions will be made by Jobcentre Plus staff. The Secretary of State cannot, at this stage, authorise contracted-out providers either to deliver the sanction or to make decisions leading to sanctions. Again, it is important to reflect the non-ideological nature of the conversation that we have been having for several months. Contracting out is not an across-the-board, ideological fix. It depends on how it is used and what it is used for. It was the judgment of shadow Ministers that it was not appropriate for contracted-out providers to make those decisions. Conflict of interest could obviously arise, particularly when contracted-out providers are paid according to outcomes, and are given a fee for success, as it were. The implication is that they might be seen by claimants as having an interest in wielding the stick, applying sanctions so that people are more likely to work and the provider can earn more fees as a result.
	I was never one for thinking that the private sector would be so crass as to go down that route. Most of the private sector contractors to whom I have spoken overthe past year have a genuine caring mission in taking people from welfare into work. Yes, there is a commercial advantage in their doing so, and they have to make a profit but, by and large, they do so with great skill, compassion and concern for the customer. I never thought that the possibility that Ministers would want to contract out sanctioning to the private sector would be a major problem, but insofar as it worried outside lobby and support groups that help disabled people and claimants, it was likely to worry claimants. We made it clear that we wanted the state, not a private outsourced contractor, to make those potentially sensitive decisions on sanctioning. It was interesting to read in the report, Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work, which was published in March, David Freud's recommendation that sanctions be administered though Jobcentre Plus.
	The outside groups that expressed concern to me and to othersMencap, the disability benefits consortium, Leonard Cheshire and many othersshould be pleased with the outcome of their lobbying efforts and persuasion throughout the Bill, including on this point. They can say that Parliament and Ministers have been listening and have made the decision that they wanted. If Ministers want to give a power of sanction to the outsourced contractors, they will again have to argue the case in Parliament. We shall see whether that is necessary in future.
	We had an interesting debate in Committee about sanctions attaching to housing benefit. Some of us thought that there were sufficient sanctions in the system already. For totally unacceptable behaviour by tenants, the sanction is eviction. The provisions in the Bill suggested that in addition, after evictions proceedings had gone through, there would be a further benefit sanction if the recalcitrant tenant causing misery for neighbours did not mend their ways.
	We then moved on to the topic of piloting. In fairness, Ministers always envisaged that the new housing benefit sanction after evictions proceedings had kicked in needed to be tested. We were concerned that the piloting would be open ended. We argued for a two-year sunset clause, in effect enabling Parliament to monitor the pilots for up to two years. I am delighted that the amendment, which the Minister supports, means that if the Government want a scheme to run after December 2010, further primary legislation will be required, as the hon. Gentleman indicated.
	I conclude by endorsing the Minister's remarks about the generally bipartisan cross-party consensus on the principles of the Bill. That does not mean to say that the job is done. Pursuant to the Bill, detailed future regulations will be produced, and as we all know, the devil is always in the detail. Those regulations will not be subject to substantive amendment, but with the provisions that we have discussed today, particularly the annual report, I am confident that the Government of the day, whoever they are, will be put under scrutiny to make real the possibility of those on welfare getting a better deal in Britain in the 21st century, a better chance to get out of welfare and into work, out of dependency and living more fulfilling lives.
	I am grateful to the Minister for listening to what was said in the other place on these important groups of amendments, and for contributing so well to our deliberations in this place. I hope, like him, that the Bill is at least a starting point in making Britain a better place for those who want to get out of dependency.

Vincent Cable: I am new to the deliberations on the Bill. I do not claim to know as much about the Bill or the arguments behind it as the Minister or his Conservative shadow, but my colleagues who do and who have been involved with it have asked me to convey their appreciation of the fact that a consensus approach has evolved and that many of their concerns have been dealt with. As is often the case, the other place has significantly improved the Bill.
	There were several specific areas of controversy that concerned my colleagues, each of which has now reached a reasonable end point. The first is Lords amendment No. 1, which relates to the evaluation of the new personal capability assessments. As we all know from our constituency work, the process of assessment is stressful and difficult. We all have numerous cases of constituents often with complex and variable conditions who, on the basis of a perfunctory interview with medical staff from the Department for Work and Pensions, have lost their benefits and begun a long and difficult process of appeal. It is a stressful business.
	Under the new system there will be two basic changes, one of which is the shift from incapability to capability, which is in one sense progressive, but in many respects is more difficult to test. Also, as we know from the statistics, the number of people involved in invalidity benefits of one kind or another is increasingly people suffering from mental conditions, rather than physical disabilities. Those, as we know, are often very difficult to capture, vary from time to time and are complex and difficult to measure. The processes that will have to evolve will therefore have to be more sophisticated and more robust than has been the case in the past.
	I am aware that the Department has been evaluating the new PCAs and trying to get them right, both with its internal medical staff and with the external software consultants. I believe that disability groups have expressed some concern about the outcome. As the Minister said, the DWP is constantly trying to improve the assessments. The missing element was a genuinely independent and regular evaluation. My colleagues tabled amendments about that, and I am delighted to see that the Government have accepted the principle and we have achieved a good result.
	The second issue was less fundamental, but my colleague Lord Oakeshott was among those who tried to achieve a more precise definition of medical practitioner. Again, the Government have produced their own amendment, which largely meets the case.
	The third area of concern related to clause 15 and the potential that appeared to exist initially, because of ambiguity, for private contractors to make judgments on benefits and sanctions. We see no problem in principle with the private sector playing a role in the work of the Department, but it must clearly be circumscribed. This was not an appropriate area. We are glad that the role has been much more clearly defined. Again, that is a satisfactory outcome.
	Finally, Lords amendment No. 9 to clause 30 relates to the linkage between housing benefit and antisocial behaviour. This is clearly a controversial subject on which people have very different views. It is right that that is proceeding through pilot studies. Our view from the outset was that the pilots should be time-limited and that a sunset clause was needed. Again, there seems to have a sensible compromise on the duration of the sunset clause. Overall, we are content with the way in which the other place has developed the Bill. I express my appreciation to all those concerned with that process.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 55 agreed to.

Sri Lanka

Kim Howells: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	I am pleased to have this opportunity today to debate the situation in Sri Lanka, and I am grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members present for their interest in this important issue. There has been mounting concern about the continuing violence and tragic displacement of people from their homes on that beautiful island. I want the House to know that this debate is the result of expressions of concern from right hon. and hon. Members. It is not, as some propagandists and partisan elements have claimed, a debate generated by any faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any lobbying organisations claiming to represent any part of the large Sri Lankan diaspora residing in Britain, pro or anti-LTTE.
	I participated in a debate on Sri Lanka a year ago, when I expressed the hope that its Government and the LTTEthe Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelamwould fulfil the commitments that they made at talks in Geneva in February 2006, which were the first talks for three years. The Government had pledged that no armed group or person other than Government security forces would carry arms or conduct operations. For its part, the LTTE had pledged to ensure that there would be no acts of violence against the security forces and the police.
	Sadly, those commitments remain unfulfilled. We have over the past year seen worsening violence. Extra-judicial killings, disappearances, intimidation and violence by paramilitary groups are all too common. The violence has fuelled an atmosphere of extreme mistrust and polarisation, which has fuelled further antagonism and violence. Innocent civilians have borne the brunt. There are now more than 100,000 displaced persons in the eastern district of Batticaloa and hundreds more arrive every day. There have been more than 700 cases of missing persons in the Jaffna peninsular, and nearly 500 are still unresolved. There have been more than 50 abductions in Colombo in the past year, and nine media workers have lost their lives in recent months. In the past few weeks, bus bombings have killed dozens of people simply going about their daily business. These are despicable terrorist acts that are totally without justification.
	The responsibility of the LTTE for violent acts over the years is well documented. It is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The EU listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation in May 2006. We have repeatedly urged the LTTE to move away from the path of violence. In the absence of a full renunciation of terrorism in deed and word, there can be no question of reconsidering its proscribed status. LTTE involvement in killings, torture, detention of civilians and denial of freedom of speech is a reality. The LTTE does not tolerate any expression of opposition and its continuing recruitment of child soldiers is a matter of great concern.
	The ability of the LTTE to raise funds overseas helps to sustain its ability to carry out violent acts and reduces the incentive to move way from the path of violence. LTTE fundraising activity in the United Kingdom encourages war, not peace. It will not be tolerated, and I have recently met our security authorities to discuss how we can counter the bullying, threats and acts of fraud that are used regularly to extract money from the Tamil population and others in the country.
	The LTTE is not the only source of violence in Sri Lanka, however. Civilians in Government-controlled areas regularly fall victim to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting with apparent immunity. Reports of the Government's links with the faction led by Karuna, a former LTTE commander, concern us a great deal. We believe Karuna and his faction to be responsible for extra-judicial killings, abductions, intimidation of displaced persons and child recruitment. Karuna's record is appalling, and we will be watching very closely whether he acts on his commitment to the United Nations to address the child recruitment issue. We will want to see clear evidence that he has delivered against his welcome promises. Karuna needs to go further and cease all acts of violence and intimidation against civilians.
	There must be no question of the Government of Sri Lanka allowing Karuna to perpetrate those crimes. If they are serious in their desire to find paths to an inclusive, peaceful Sri Lanka that embraces all its peoples and cultures, they must disassociate themselves completely from all acts of abuse, terrorism, intimidation or torture, no matter who commits them or what agency encourages them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware of the comment by the FBI assistant director in charge, who said
	Karuna hasn't merely supported the LTTE cause, he has orchestrated support in the US?
	Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he answer two questions? First, what international co-ordination is there on intelligence to stop fundraising for the LTTE? Secondly, is there similar co-ordination to ensure that people such as Karuna, who have committed acts of terrorism, are brought to justice?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right: the list of crimes by this faction is long. We have been exchanging intelligence with a number of agencies in other countries. He will know that I cannot go into detail about that matter, although I can say that lately intelligence has indicated that there may be widespread fraud scams in the country. We are not certain about that, but they may be one of the sources of funding, at least part of which finds its way back to the LTTE and acts of terrorism.
	Achieving peace is not going to be an easy task, and of course it is primarily for the Sri Lankan people to find a way forward. However, the international community can help. The Norwegians have had a central role in facilitating the 2002 ceasefire agreement, and the British Government applaud their efforts. It is obvious from recent events that the ceasefire is in trouble, if not shot to pieces. If it is adhered to and underpinned by the right conditions, however, it can still be a good base from which to launch a new peace initiative. The Norwegians have worked tirelessly and in difficult conditions to advance the cause of peace. As I said, they have our support. We value our regular consultations with them. The Norwegians tell us our commitment is valuable at this time. We support the work of the co-chairsthe US, the EU, Japan and Norway.

Chris Mullin: Would I be right in thinking that the Norwegian general who was based in Sri Lanka advised the EU against declaring the LTTE a terrorist organisation and said that that would lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire?

Kim Howells: I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether that is true. I do not know; this is the first that I have heard of it, if it is the case. I will try to find out for him, and if I can find anything constructive, I shall write to him.
	What is Britain doing to help with the search for peace? First and foremost, we are offering the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience. Sri Lanka is not Northern Ireland. It has a population of 20 million, which is more than 10 times that of Northern Ireland, and it is five times larger in area, but we think there are lessons from Northern Ireland that can be applied in a Sri Lankan context. For example, we learned the hard way that a focus on security can get us only so far. A lasting peace can come only if the underlying causes of conflict are addressed. In Sri Lanka, that means focusing on a credible framework for a negotiated settlement. An all-party conference will shortly present its findings on a constitutional way forward. I look forward to the publication of proposals for a framework for peace that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans, and to a constructive response to such proposals from the Sri Lankan Government.
	Our Northern Ireland experience told us that peace will not happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing can be gained by continuing violence. A military victory for one side is very unlikely to produce a lasting political solution. Our experience tells us that an emphasis on the military inevitably means more war, rather than peace. A military victory is rarely winnable in the long run. Violence comes with too high a price. In Sri Lanka, we can see that such an approach brings suffering to the people, as human rights are eroded, the humanitarian situation deteriorates, a culture of impunity develops among the killers, extortionists and torturers, and mistrust between communities increases. That, in turn, damages Sri Lanka's image in the eyes of the world. We are doing all we can to get that message across.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for arriving too late to hear the start of his speech. Unfortunately, the previous business ended rather suddenly and the debate began before I could get here.
	My hon. Friend mentioned human rights. There is considerable concern in Sri Lanka and internationally about the human rights situation at the present time. Several international organisations have suggested that the only real solution is to set up a UN-sponsored human rights monitoring commission. How would the Government view such a body?

Kim Howells: That suggestion is well worth considering. I will come to the question of a monitoring organisation in a minute. Of course, we already have one, and perhaps the best thing is to make that work rather than search for another one. However, it is certainly something that we could discuss.
	High-level engagement is an essential part of our efforts to help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka. Last August, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered to share our experience of Northern Ireland with the Sri Lankan President, and he retains a close interest in events in Sri Lanka. I was particularly grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) visited Sri Lanka in November to convey his invaluable experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Accompanied by another expert in these matters from the Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Chris McCabe, he met the President, Ministers and members of civil society. He also met representatives of the LTTE; the lessons of peace can only work if conveyed to all parties to the conflict. We remain ready to talk to the LTTE if such contacts can help the cause of peace. The response in Sri Lanka to my right hon. Friend's visit was very positive. I know that the President shares my wish that he and Mr. McCabe will pay a return visit to the island, and I understand that preparations are already under way for that.
	I was pleased to visit Sri Lanka for a second time in February this year. In my meetings with the President, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Secretary, I underlined the British Government's wish to help in the search for peace. I stressed that a military solution was not the way forwarda message that I repeated to an MP from the Tamil National Alliance. The President told me that he thought that our contact with the LTTE would be helpful. I visited Ampara in the east of the island and was pleased to meet representatives of local communitiesnot only Sinhalese and Tamil but Muslims. It will be important to take into account the views of the Muslim community in any final negotiated settlement. I heard from UNICEF about the reality of child abductions and the threats and intimidations suffered by other non-governmental organisations in the east of the island.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in London in March. She reiterated Britain's commitment to peace and our willingness to get involved in that whole process. She spoke of the terrible humanitarian impact of the conflict on the civilian population and the need for both sides to do more to protect that population. She repeated the message that there can be no military solution to conflict. The Minister assured her that a credible framework for negotiated settlement would issue very soon.

Keith Vaz: I, too, apologise for arriving late, having been caught out by the business moving so swiftly.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on these issues; whenever we have asked to meet to discuss them, he has been ready to do so. One of the bars to a proper solution to this problem is the ban that remains on the LTTE. Has he had any further discussions with the Home Secretary about whether the Government would be prepared to lift that ban, so ensuring that all parties could be part of a discussion to bring peace to the island?

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend, through no fault of his own, missed that part of my speech. If he will forgive me, I will not go back over it but simply say that, for reasons that I tried to explain a little earlier, I have not met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to discuss this matter; if I thought that it was a good idea I would certainly do so. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen met LTTE representatives in the north of the island, and we are prepared to meet LTTE representatives in Sri Lanka if it is considered that that will help the peace process. I hope that that is clear enough.

John McDonnell: We are all apologising for lateness, but I was not as late as the others.
	As we learned from Northern Ireland, individual issues can build up to create a sense of grievance. That is the case with regard to the proscription and non-recognition of the LTTE. Although there can be informal dialogue, nothing can substitute for more formal dialogue and recognition. Removing the ban would undermine one of the elements of the sense of grievance that contributes towards the conflict.

Kim Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is something that we have to consider. However, I have to tell him that, of all Members in this House, I am very much averse to recognising the legitimacy, if I could put it like that, of suicide bombers, murderers, torturers and rapists. I have been there twice and I have heard these stories myself many times, from NGOs and from Tamils themselves, as well as from Sinhalese and the Sinhalese Government. This has to be considered very carefully. As I tried to explain earlier, there is no silver bullet that will sort everything out. If we thought that that recognition would take matters forward, we would certainly be prepared to consider it very seriouslyI give my hon. Friend that undertaking.

Edward Davey: I must add my apologies for lateness.
	The Minister clearly wants to ensure that there is a balanced discussion about this issue, and he is right because it is very serious. However, could not he lay out a review process and explain how he might talk to colleagues in this House and groups in this country, as well as to the people he and his colleagues have met on their visits to Sri Lanka, to determine the criteria? Some people in communities throughout this country and around this House feel that a one-sided approach is being taken and that a proper review process might ensure that a truly balanced approach is taken.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is not to know this, but we have had quite a number of meetings with Tamil groups from around the country. As well as talking to the Sri Lankan Government, we have met all kinds of representatives. Let me assure him that this is a completely balanced approach. Securing this debate is part of that process, and I hope that he will contribute to it. Our approach seeks not to take sides either with the Sinhalese Government or with the LTTE but to try to use our good offices and our experience in Northern Ireland, among other places, to try to find ways in which it might be possible to help the Norwegians to make the ceasefire work, and then to take that peace process forward, put the issues on the table, and get everyone around the table to try to resolve the issue.
	Some 60,000 people have died in this war so far, and perhaps 1 million people have been displaced. It is a very serious conflict by any standards in the world, and we are working very hard to try to resolve it, but, believe me, there is no easy way forward on this oneit will take a long time. This conflict has been going on for a very long time. Before you took your seat in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker was telling me that he remembers it kicking off when he was out there in 1983in fact, it was the day after he left; I do not know whether he was to blame.
	We complement our high-level engagement with more practical assistance through a joint Department for International Development, Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office peace-building strategy for Sri Lanka. The focus includes people-to-people contacts between communities, mechanisms to provide early warning of potential for conflict, and development of civil society capacity to monitor conflict. We are involved in all those processes. We believe that quiet activity of that kind has an important role to play in these difficult times.
	I know that many in the Sri Lankan diaspora have been pleased to see Britain's active involvement in Sri Lanka. We believe the Sri Lankan diaspora in Britain to be perhaps as great as 200,000 strong. It is important that we take into account their views and insights as we try to formulate a balanced policy on Sri Lanka. Right hon. and hon. Members present will understand that there is a wide range of views within the community on a way forward for peace and the role of Britain in Sri Lanka. We try to listen to all perspectives within the community, and we value those opinions and insights.

Peter Luff: I congratulate the Minister on his balanced approach to a sensitive and difficult subject. He has been subject to calls during the debate to recognise the LTTE. Is not it difficult to do that when, for example, the organisation assassinated the Foreign Minister, who was an ethnic Tamil, in 2005? As long as organisations practise such blatant violence and disruption of civil society, it is difficult to give them the recognition that they crave.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman made that point wellI could not have made it more vividly.
	The Tamil community has been especially concerned about deteriorating human rights in Sri Lanka. Its concern is understandablemany of its members have first-hand accounts of the difficulties that their friends and family face daily. Earlier, I spoke about the abductions, disappearances, intimidation and extra-judicial killings that have regrettably become commonplace. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made our position clear to the Government of Sri Lanka. There has to be an end to the culture of impunity. Those responsible for human rights violations should be brought to justice.
	We have welcomed the establishment of a President's commission and an eminent persons group to observe the commission's work. The British Government are funding the participation of Sir Nigel Rodley, an internationally respected professor of law, in that group. We shall continue to raise our concerns with the Sri Lankan Government.

Andrew Love: Considerable concern and criticism have been expressed about the Sri Lankan Government's failure to support the commission in its essential work, with which the international community is involved through the eminent persons group. What action have the British Government taken to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government do everything that they can to help the commission in its work?

Kim Howells: We have attempted, through all diplomatic channels, to clarify for the Sri Lankan Government our determination that the process should work. Sir Nigel Rodley is not somebody to mess around with. He is a serious person, who will not take part in the group if he believes that his investigations are being impeded in any way. We have great confidence in him and in the eminent persons group to see the matter through. We urge the Sri Lankan Government to make their rhetoric on the need for a proper investigative commission work on the ground. We shall continue to urge them to do that and facilitate that work wherever we can.
	Britain is a great friend of Sri Lanka and the dire situation there is a matter of great concern to the Government. We are determined to work with the Government of Sri Lanka to bring peace. We are ready to talk to all parties to the conflict if that can help with the search for a solution. I have spoken of three things that need to happen to make peace possible. First, the parties to the conflict must accept that a military victory is neither possible nor a basis for a lasting solution. Secondly, there has to be a credible framework for a negotiated settlementI hope that that can emerge from the work of the all-party conference. Thirdly, there must be respect for the human rights of all Sri Lankans and an end to the culture of impunity.
	Britain stands ready to help the Sri Lankans find a peaceful solution to their conflict that will offer a bright future for all their citizens. I hope that the House will agree that the Government's commitment to peace in Sri Lanka at this difficult time has been genuine and that it will be sustained.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the Minister on his calm and balanced introduction to the debate. We have had a good start to a debate on a subject that evokes passions. It is important to debate it in the House.
	Sri Lanka is a beautiful island with a population of approximately 19.5 million people and it has been my pleasure to visit it. It is rightly a popular tourist destinationit has more than 600 miles of beaches, with resorts on the west, south and east coasts. It also contains deep jungle and mountain slopes, where high quality Ceylon tea is grown.
	Sri Lanka has an ancient and historic civilisation, some of which I have explored through ruined cities and buildings such as palaces, dagobars and Buddhist temples throughout the island. I am conscious of the substantial archaeological interest in various sites, including Anuradhapura, Mihintale, Polonnaruwa, Sigirya, Dambulla and Kandy, where the glory of the island's past can be witnessed at first hand.
	I have been welcomed by the friendly people of Sri Lanka when I have visited. It is therefore especially sad, given its natural richness, that the troubles and deep divisions persist on that beautiful island. I note that the Minister visited in February. As he said, the problems have been going on for far too long. The dispute in Sri Lanka does not get as much international attention as it deserves when compared with Darfur, Somalia or Burma. That is a travesty, given the long-standing nature of the conflict.
	Its recent history began in 1975, when a Tamil, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, began to form an extremist wing, which is now known as the Tamil Tigersthe LTTE. The Foreign Office estimates that, since that conflict began, nearly 70,000 people have been killed and perhaps more than a million people have been displaced. It is a major conflict in anybody's terms. In recent times, the conflict and death rates have escalated. In answer to a written parliamentary question from me earlier this year, the Minister said that there were 1,000 civilian deaths last year and 40 this January alone. I also note that some 64,857 internally displaced persons are in the process of being resettled. That is expected to happen by the end of July.
	The conflict has brought untold misery to many more throughout the country who have been injured, displaced or lost loved ones. The international community should make renewed efforts to inject momentum into the peace process. As the Minister repeated several times, a political solution, agreed by all the parties involved in the dispute, is the only lasting answer to the problem.
	To begin to resolve the conflict, both sides must recognise that that will not happen by military means. As the United Kingdom Government discovered in Northern Ireland, there must be a political solution. There will never be a military solution to the Sri Lankan problem.
	Given the deeply ingrained feelings of mistrust on both sides, resolution is not an easy prospect, as the Minister said. Yet we should not stop trying. It should be our purpose today to discuss what we can do to facilitate the end of the violence in that beautiful country.
	There is almost daily violence between the armed forces of the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. On Friday, three Sri Lankan navy personnel were killed by members of the LTTE in a gun battle in Trincomalee on the east coast. On Thursday, Sri Lankan army troops launched an attack on the rebel mortar position in the north-west of the country, where clashes the previous day left 23 combatants dead. The sad truth is that similar incidents happen every day and will probably continue to happen unless something is done to stop them.
	As the Minister said, only five years ago the position appeared a great deal more positive, when the 2002 peace agreement brokered by the Norwegian-led peace envoy was signed on 2 February. Both parties agreed to
	recognise the importance of bringing an end to hostilities and improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by the conflict... bringing an end to the hostilities is also seen... as a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken.
	Unfortunately, from that high water mark, it is clear that a solution in Sri Lanka is in desperate need of a positive atmosphere, demonstrated by the working of that peace accord.
	I greatly welcome and appreciate the efforts of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is present today. He visited the country in November and met not only members of the Sri Lankan Government but non-governmental organisations and senior members of the LTTE. His wealth of knowledge of how the Northern Ireland peace solution evolved should be invaluable to both sides of the conflict. I welcome the friendly way in which he felt able to discuss that matter with me. It has been a considerable help in understanding the problems of Sri Lanka.
	I believe that the example of Northern Ireland is particularly pertinent when considering a solution in Sri Lanka. For a long time, the IRA pursued a violent military campaign to try to force the British Government to concede to its demands, yet it finally realised that the British Government and the British people would not buckle to its tactics. Thankfully, we have now seen an end to the IRA's campaign of violence. The LTTE and others should take their lead from the IRA and involve themselves in the political process. The simple reality is that no Government can or should give in to the demands of those who would kill and maim innocent civilians. The use of violence to make one's voice heard is unacceptable in a civilised society.
	Independent reports of bombings, shootings, the recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE have resulted, as we heard today, in the organisation becoming proscribed by the EU, the US, Australia and India. The LTTE seeks to justify its actions because it claims that it faces discrimination from the Sri Lankan Government, while also claiming that it is denied the right to an independent homeland. However, there is never justification for a campaign of aggression on the scale that we have seen.
	Let me turn briefly to deal with the role that the Sri Lankan Government could play in this conflict. The Government are internationally recognised as the democratically elected Administration of the country. Equally, it cannot be said that the Sri Lankan Government have played no part in exacerbating the conflict. I think that the Sri Lankan Government's decision to close the main A9 road to Jaffna and leave it closed for such a long time was unhelpful and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, called on the Government to open that road during the period that it was closed.
	What makes the Sri Lankan Government's decisions unacceptable is that they have refused access to international aid agencies, which bring much-needed humanitarian relief to the people of that troubled north-east region. I know that the Minister met the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka and doubtless made that point to him. I also met him when he came here in early March and made precisely that point.
	Political representation for the Tamil minority in Sri Lankan politics is another issue that needs serious consideration. If Sri Lanka is to be capable of creating a long-term and peaceful solution to its problems, engagement in an inclusive political process is essential.
	The Tamil community has claimed for a long time that it faced discrimination by the Sinhalese establishment. It complains that it has been and continues to be marginalised and stopped from reaching positions of power. I believe that the Government of Sri Lanka should take that very seriously and should make every effort to rectify it and foster a lasting sense of understanding between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil population that will ultimately lead to peace. It must be made clear that the Tamil people will be allowed to share power and that their political involvement will be welcomed.
	The best way for the Sri Lankan Government to defeat insurrection is to offer the Tamil people a peaceful and meaningful democratically accountable role in the Sri Lankan Parliament. Those affected by the conflict must be desperate for an alternative that will end violence, yet while no realistic alternative exists, the LTTE will continue to gain support from their populations. The Sri Lankan Government should seek to win hearts and minds in order to cut off support to that base and the extremists.
	I welcome the actions of the Sri Lankan Government's security forces, including paramilitaries, but they must be careful that they are not seen to be abusing human rights. In that respect, I welcome the independent group of eminent persons, which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned, so ably chaired by the respected Indian judge, Mr. Bhagwati, as well as Sir Nigel Rodley and an EU representative. The work that this independent acceptable group could do would be commendable.
	The international community is rightly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government have not necessarily addressed serious human rights abuses, including torture, being perpetrated by the LTTE against civilians. The Minister recognised today that the LTTE is accused by UNICEF and others of having recruited more than 6,500 children for its armed campaign. That is quite unacceptable. As the Minister told me in a written parliamentary answer:
	Officials regularly make clear that the use of child soldiers in Sri Lanka cannot be tolerated.[ Official Report, 9 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 453-54W.]
	I was very pleased to hear him restate that again today.
	Similarly, the LTTE continues to make allegations against the Government. It recently accused them of killing 10 Indian fishermen who had strayed into Sri Lankan territorial waters. The Tamil Nadu state Government in India, however, confirmed that the LTTE was responsible for killing the Indian fishermen. Clearly, there is a certain amount of spinning and false propaganda.
	How is it funded? I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that the weapons used by the LTTE have increased in sophistication. Indeed, it recently acquired a light aircraft with a range of 600 miles in which it was able to carry out a series of air strikes across the country, damaging an oil depot owned by Royal Dutch Shell and the Indian Oil Corporation. The LTTE hit the main airport in Colombo earlier this week and the flights of three international airlinesCathay Pacific, Singapore and Emirates airlineshave been suspended. Evidence suggests that some of air raids were assisted by Canadian-trained Tamil engineers. With an economy that is heavily reliant on the tourist industry, the aims of the LTTE are obvious. It seeks to cripple the island's economy with its acts, harming the entire island's economic well-being.
	Where does LTTE funding come from? The US State Department's annual country terrorism report, published on Monday, suggests that the LTTE finances itself from the Tamil diaspora based in North America, Europe and Australia, as well as by imposing local taxes on businesses operating in the areas of Sri Lanka that it controls.
	As I said in my intervention, a chief fund raiser of the LTTE, Karunakaran Kandasamy, was arrested last week in the United States under charges of raising funds to support terrorism and fomenting terrorism in the United States. The assistant director of the FBI said:
	Karuna hasn't merely supported the LTTE cause, he has orchestrated support in the US.
	In a similar case yesterday, the Australian federal police arrested two men under suspicion of diverting funds intended to go to victims of the 2004 Boxing day tsunami to the LTTE in order to buy arms.
	In addition to those two cases, numerous others demonstrate that the LTTE has a sophisticated and complex international fundraising network. The Minister was right in his response to some of his Back Benchers that we would need to be incredibly careful about de-proscribing the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will be able to tell the House what efforts the British Government are making to work with the international community to root out those who would raise money for the LTTE and other terrorist groups.

Andrew Love: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I accept the general thrust of his remarks. Will he confirm, however, that the Opposition would welcome discussions with the LTTE, and that they believe that it will be necessary to speak to them if we are ever to reach a settlement in this conflict?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that my speech has made it crystal clear that there will have to be a political process, and that, just as in Northern Ireland, that will occasionally involve talkingperhaps covertlyto people to whom one would not necessarily wish to talk. Without talking to the other side, we can never understand where they are coming from, how a solution might be reached, what areas of common agreement there might be or what the differences are. We need to work slowly on the differences until we reach a solution.

Peter Luff: I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will be able to confirm that our deputy high commissioner in Sri Lanka is to visit the headquarters of the LTTE tomorrow to have precisely the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend has described.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I did not know about that visit. Any such dialogue can only be helpful.

Edward Davey: Further to the previous two points, it is also important to stress that the ceasefire agreement that was reached a few years ago was signed up to by the LTTE, who was very much engaged in talks with Prime Minister Wickramasinghe. It is only the election of the Rajapakse Government that has caused a big deterioration in the relationships. The hon. Gentleman is making some valid points about the shortcomings of the LTTE, but it was engaged in the peace process with the previous Sri Lankan Government, and it is important to put that firmly on record.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have made it clear that I want to see an inclusive political dialogue, and there can be a dialogue only between two parties. That means that the Sri Lankan Government must also become fully engaged in the process. As the Minister and I have said repeatedly, there cannot be a military solution, so it is in the interests of the Government and the people of Sri Lanka that we promote this dialogue from all sides. Anything that the international community can do to foster and facilitate that will be a good thing. I do not want to get into the internal politics of Sri Lankathat is not our businessbut I urge the Sri Lankan Government fully to participate in the process.
	Before I conclude, I want to consider the role of the Indian Government, who have a significant role to play in solving the problems in Sri Lanka. It is clear that there is support for the cause of the LTTE among the people in the nearest Indian province to Sri LankaTamil Nadu. I asked the Minister what representations he and the Foreign Office had made to the Indian Government to determine how we might stop some of the funding.
	I am sure that the House will join me in supporting the reinvigoration of the peace process and the Norwegian-led Sri Lankan monitoring missionthe so-called SLMN. We need to promote peace through this means. I also congratulate the co-chairs whom the Minister mentioned. However, a BBC news report on 30 March said:
	There was always the suspicion that the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Government turned up
	to the peace talks in Geneva
	only because of international pressure and without any real desire to talk peace...and a lack of progress seems to prove this.
	I do not know whether that it true or not; that is the BBC's view. Suffice it to say that anything that the British Government and the international community can do to encourage the Norwegian-led peace process has to be a good thing.
	There are some who say that Britain should take a stronger role. However, I believe that the position of Britain as the former colonial power opens us up to allegations of interfering in independent territories. Similarly, the large number of members of the Sri Lankan diaspora in this country makes if difficult for us to take a bilateral role. Of course we should encourage the Norwegian-led peace process and any UN peace process, and we should welcome the all-party report that is about to be presented in the Sri Lankan Government, but it would be wrong for the British Government to take a bilateral role.
	To conclude, I have a number of questions, and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for International Development were able to answer them when he sums up. What further ideas do the British Government have to resolve the situation? How can the Sri Lankan monitoring mission be strengthened? In the Government's view, does it have adequate funding, resources and access to all sides in the debate? Do the Government have any plans, during our chairmanship of the Security Council, to raise the matter in the Security Council or General Assembly? What direct representations has the Minister or the Foreign Office made to the Indian Government, to whom I have just referred, regarding the advancement of the peace process or the funding to the LTTE from the main continent of India?
	As I asked the Minister, is intelligence between the EU, United States, Australia and India being properly co-ordinated, and are the Government satisfied that all the necessary channels of communication are in place to do that? I want to ensure particularly that those who commit atrocities, who are well known, should be brought to trial, and that external funding to purchase the increasingly sophisticated weaponry that I have mentioned is halted, as it seems to me that it can only worsen the terrorist insurrection.
	Sri Lanka is a beautiful islandsome have called it the gem of the Indian oceanwith a wonderful, friendly, hospitable people, whose suffering as a result of this dispute is a monumental tragedy. It is the responsibility of anyone who has interests in the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Sri Lanka to ensure that their actions do not facilitate further violence. Above all, it is the duty of the international community to act in a co-ordinated way to help to facilitate a much-needed peace solution.

Jim Dowd: The hon. Gentleman has justifiably spent much of his speech criticising the LTTE and many of the outrages that it has perpetrated. The human rights record across the island of Sri Lanka is among the worst in the world. While he did say, in concluding his remarks, that all parties must recognise their responsibility, there was little in his speech that referred to some of the mistakes, not to say excesses, of the Sri Lankan Government, whose actions, over time, have produced a disproportionate number of Tamil civilian casualties.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome that intervention. Of course, we should be totally even-handed. It is wrong for outside observers to criticise one party without examining the actions of the other. Of course, the Sri Lankan Government have committed faults, as I said, and the armed forces and special forces of the Sri Lankan Government have committed human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan Government must be clear that those are properly investigated, and anyone in a position of official power who has committed atrocities and human rights abuses should be brought to book and prosecuted too.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) will not think that the Opposition have a one-sided view; we certainly do not. Our sole objective in holding the Government to account today is to try to bring the hostilities to an end and return the island to its former status as a beautiful, prosperous, happy and safe place with which we can do business, with the diaspora in this country prospering too.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for their kind comments.
	The interchange between the hon. Member for Cotswold and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) touched on the issue of human rights, and that must be set in the context of the 65,000 to 70,000 people who have perished on that island in about 30 years. I will deal with the Northern Ireland comparison later, but the two situations are uncannily similar in terms of the proportionate number of people who have died, been injured or been displaced: Northern Ireland has a population of approximately 1.5 million, and some 3,500 people died there.
	When I visited the island in November I was struck, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cotswold said, by what a beautiful island it was, and how talented, courteous and decent the people were from whatever background they camecertainly to me personally, in my limited experience. Incidentally, I saw no examples of religious intolerance on that island. Travelling late at night from the airport to the capital city, we turned one corner and saw a statute of St. Anthony of Padua, and turned another corner and saw a Buddhist shrine. When I went to the north, I saw a cathedral at the end of a street, and the sacred cows of the Hindus walking in the same street. Of course, a substantial minority of Muslims also play an active role in the country.
	I was struck by the fact that all those to whom I talked, whatever their background or experience, were very complimentary about our own country. I felt that, in accordance with the deep relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom and its peoplenot least, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, the diaspora of 200,000 who live in our landthose on the island were still very sympathetic to us, as a country and as British people.
	I want to say something about the small role that I played back in November, and to share my experiences with the House. The President of Sri Lanka had asked the Prime Minister if we could send someone to share our experiences of peacemaking in Northern Ireland with the Government and peoples of Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister asked me to go, as a former Minister of State and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, along with Chris MacCabe, political director of the Northern Ireland Office. My experience in Northern Ireland went back a dozen years; his went back nearly four decades. His experience, knowledge and expertise proved very important in our meetings.
	During our visit I met the President, a number of Ministers and civil servants, the peace secretariats, non-governmental organisations, the armed forces, different political parties, bodies set up by the Government to consider the country's constitutional future and a panel of experts, and I travelled to the north of the island to talk at some length with the LTTE. In all those encounters, I met nothing but courtesy and friendliness. I also met representatives of the business community in Columbia, who are very important to the country's future regeneration.
	The message that I tried to get across did not involve preaching to anyone, or telling the people of Sri Lanka what to do. That would have been entirely counterproductive. I think that the reason for the point we have reached in Northern Irelandover the whole 10-year period of the peace process, and over the last few weeks in particularis that the people of Northern Ireland themselves created the peace process and the peace settlement. Similarly, it is for the people of Sri Lanka to complete their own peace and political processes.
	In many ways, I was in Sri Lanka to tell a storya success story, I am delighted to say, and I am sure we are all delighted about it. I wanted to know whether people in Sri Lanka, within or outside politics, could look to us and Northern Ireland as an example in bringing peace to their country. The first message that I hoped to convey to the people and their representatives was one that had been given to them, only weeks before I went to Sri Lanka, by Mr. Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister-elect and the chief negotiator for Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland peace talks. He had gone to Sri Lanka and said what my hon. Friend the Minister has said: that no one can win the war in Sri Lanka, just as no one could win the war in Northern Ireland.
	It is possible to continue such a war, of course. More people can die, more people can be injured and more people can be displaced. Ultimately, however, comes the realisation that a military solution is not possible. I say that without reference to either side: it applies across the board, like our tests on abuse of human rights, torture, and all the other terrible things that have happened in that country. I lay no blame on anyone. I simply say that, at the end of the day, military action leads nowhere.
	How is it possible for those in Sri Lanka to look to our peace process in Northern Ireland, beyond that central message, and for peace to come to Sri Lanka? One answer is that there must be absolute parity of esteem, the phrase that we used in Northern Ireland. It means that all people must be treated equally, regardless of their past or who they might be. Every single idea or conceptsome might be dotty, some good; it matters notmust be put on the table. Such inclusiveness had to apply not only to the constitutional settlementthat is being worked on in detail in Sri Lankabut also to the issues of language, social and economic equality, human rights, freedom of information and all the other things that divide people. Such issues have divided people in Northern Ireland, and they do so in Sri Lanka, and none of them should be excluded from discussion.
	Another lesson that can be learned is that there must be an international dimension to any solution in Sri Lanka. I pay tribute to our Norwegian friends, who have done a tremendous job in Sri Lanka in holding things together as best they can. They have often managed to engage in difficult circumstances where almost everybody was against them because they were in the middle. This House and the Government should pay tribute to the work that the Norwegians do, and we should also pay tribute to the co-chairs. When I was in Sri Lanka, I met the ambassadors of the EU, Japan, India and the United States, and our own high commissioner, who is doing a good job.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On the Norwegians and the peace process, does the right hon. Gentleman think that externalising the negotiations in Geneva is the right way forward, or would it be helpful to have one or two meetings in Sri Lanka itself? Does he have a view on that?

Paul Murphy: I have a view, but I would not want to propose it to either side in Sri Lanka as a solution to things. I suggest that the Northern Ireland peace process was ultimately successful because it was held in Northern Ireland. There was also international chairmanship from three different countries. People were constantly working on a peace process. Members will recall that people were elected to be negotiators in Northern Ireland, and that they were, in effect, locked up in Castle buildings in Belfast for almost three years, and they were paid, and had support, to do nothing but negotiate. It is important that there is that constant working at a peace processas is the fact that in negotiations people inevitably come together. They have to come together because they are physically together and they are talking together.
	That issue of talking is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) touched on that. Even at the most desperate times over the last 30 years in this country, there were lines of communication between those in Northern Ireland who were engaged in the strife there and our Government. We should read the history books about what happened over the past 30 years. At no time did the lines of communication cease. That is missing in Sri Lanka. The British Government and our allies should constantly press for there always to be a proper line of communication. There is a line of communication with the Norwegians, but another could be set up.
	In Sri Lanka, I met the people who had been displaced in the eastern part of the island. That dramatically brought home the appalling tragedy for ordinary human beings of situations such as that in Sri Lanka. We are talking in this nice Chamber this afternoon, but the reality is that there are men, women and children who are constantly and severely suffering because of the lack of peace, and the lack of a proper peace process, such as there was in Northern Ireland.
	There is an issue to do with the diaspora which is also comparable to the Northern Ireland situation. We have talked about what happened in our case. One of the key reasons why the Northern Ireland process was successful was that the attitude of the Irish diasporain Australia and other countries to an extent, but most importantly in the United Stateschanged towards what should happen in Ireland. Nowadays, almost everybody in the USAsuch as Irish-American politicians and business peoplehas signed up to the Good Friday agreement. If we can get the Sri Lankan diaspora across the world to have a similar frame of mindif they begin to think that they can sign up to a process and then help the people of Sri Lanka economically and commerciallythat will be a considerable improvement. However, that cannot happen unless there is a proper ceasefire.
	The other great lesson that people across the world, and particularly in Sri Lanka, can take from our experiences in Northern Ireland is that a ceasefire has to be meaningful. Only when violence effectively ended in Northern Ireland did we see success. Of course, sporadic violence occurred, and to a certain extent it will continue to occur among criminal elements in Northern Ireland, but when the fighting stops and the ceasefire is effective, everything is possible. To me, that is the first and most important thing that should happen.
	There is another, political issue. In the past 30 years in this Chamber, there has been a bipartisan approach and unanimity among all political parties on the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. That has not happened in Sri Lanka, but we should applaud the fact that it is beginning to happen. If the political parties do not adopt a unified approach, the issue of peace will become a political football, which is the last thing that should happen.

Andrew Love: During his trip to Sri Lanka, my right hon. Friend will have received delegations from the Muslim community and from Tamil communities who are not part of the Tamil National Alliance, who are concerned that their voices might not be recognised in the dialogue between the LTTE and the Government on a solution to the Sri Lankan problem. The experience in Northern Ireland shows that all the different political tendencies ought to be recognised in order to reach a solution. Does my right hon. Friend view that as an important part of making progress in Sri Lanka?

Paul Murphy: That is a vital part of the process. As part of the peace-making negotiations in Northern Ireland, the tiniest of the parties elected had exactly the same say in the process, even though their votes did not necessarily carry the same weight. The necessary will, trust and confidence also have to be there. They can sometimes take many monthseven yearsto develop, but will, trust, confidence, parity of esteem and the equality of treatment of everybody, whatever their views might be, are essential.
	I hope to visit Sri Lanka in the not-too-distant future and to take part in telling the story of our peace process in Northern Ireland. I am reminded of something that Lee Kuan Yew said, which some Members might also remember. When he was building Singapore, he wanted his country to become something like Ceylon, as it was then called. Now, of course, it should be the aim of everybody in Sri Lanka to ensure that their country becomes as prosperous, dignified and civilised a country as any other in the world.

Simon Hughes: I very much welcome this debate and the contributions of the Minister and of the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given their experience in these matters. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who wanted to be here but cannot. I am therefore happy to speak on behalf of my colleagues, and to do so in the light of my interest in these issues over many years, having had the privilege and opportunity of visiting Sri Lanka a few years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and other hon. Friends with London constituencies represent, as I do, significant numbers of people from Sri Lanka from all the different communities. Many colleagues in the House are in the same position, so we have direct day-to-day knowledge of the experiences of our Sri Lankan constituents, who have lived out war and peace, death and bereavement. Constituents of mine have lost sisters and other direct family members.
	This issue is very important to the United Kingdom. Sri Lanka is connected to us through huge links of history. It was not only a colony with which we had a trading background; there have been very positive relations following the Labour Government's granting of independence to Sri Lanka and the first former colonies after the war. Sri Lanka then evolved into a republic, and since then many commercial, travel, cultural and sporting links have been established. My only light-hearted comment on this issue is to commiserate with Sri Lanka on not, in the end, pulling off victory in the cricket world cup final in the West Indies.

Andrew Love: At least they got to the final.

Simon Hughes: Absolutelysays a Scot. Thank goodness the competition comes around again once every four years.
	I wish to start by making two points, one from a constituency perspective and one from the historical perspective. First, I became involved in Sri Lankan issues because people came to see me about them. I knew about the history of the issues from the books, but soon after I was elected some Tamils came to see me. They wanted, as proud people in national groups who do not have autonomy do, to have the pride of running their own place. The Minister of State has strong Welsh links, as I do, and the Welsh are proud of their heritage. The Labour Government have given Wales more independence and we will celebrate that in the elections for the Welsh Assembly tomorrow. Further power will be given to the Assembly and I hope that, one day, it will become a Welsh Parliament. Colleagues from Scotland have celebrated the fantastic devolution to Scotland of its own Parliament and powers of decision making. The Tamils told me that they wanted to make their own decisions, too, and that is a laudable and honourable objective.
	I was sympathetic to the Tamils' case and, over the years, I have met them and talked to people who have been sympathetic to all aspects of the struggle, including the peaceful and the military, just as in the past hon. Members have been sympathetic to people who took peaceful and non-peaceful routes in South Africa to try to get justice for their people. As people who are far more eminent than any of us, such as Archbishop Tutu and President Mandela, have said, one may never agree with people using violence, but one can understand why they sometimes do. I understand why some people decided that they had no recourse other than violence, and I have met some people who had taken that view.
	A few years ago, I visited Anton Balasingham, the No. 2 in the LTTE who had settled in this country. He died a few months ago and his funeral was in north London. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton and I went to meet him because, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen said, the way forward is through dialogue with people on all sides.
	I have been to the high commission of Sri Lanka and I have met Ministers when they have visited, and I have always tried to keep open the dialogue. However, the view of the Sri Lankan Government and officialdom has sometimes been that I must be a supporter of the Tamil Tigers and take the terrorists' view. I have never taken the terrorist view that taking arms and killing people is the solution. However, unless one recognises that the people who are in that position have the same right to put their case and unless they are engaged in the processas Northern Ireland showed they have to bethere will be no peace. It is no good going back over the terrible history of Sri Lanka in the past 60 years, with the assassinations of Prime Ministers, Presidents and Foreign Ministers and people living by the bullet and suicide bombers. That cannot be used now as a justification for not talking to people, because that will mean that no progress will be made.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I have often attended Tamil events in Trafalgar square. Does he agree that the non-recognition of the LTTE's presence in Britain is not helpful? We need to develop a dialogue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) outlined after his visit. The declaration that the organisation is illegal has angered many people and does not help to bring about a peace process. That is not to say that those people approve of the violence, but they do want dialogue.

Simon Hughes: Speaking for myself, I share that view. I understand why the organisation was proscribed, but I agree that it has been more unhelpful than helpful. The proscription of organisations gives people a further cause to take up arms. I remember when Sinn Fein could not be heard to speakits representatives were banned by the Conservative Government. Did that reduce support for Sinn Fein? Of course it did not. Did it make it go quiet? No. In fact, it gained support. Banning people makes them go underground. I am sure that the UK and the EU as a whole would benefit from the unbanning of the LTTE if that were to be part of a package of movement towards peace on all sides.

Stephen Pound: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is going with his argument, but the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about keeping communication channels open reminded me that Conservative Home Secretaries met representatives of the Provisional IRA, even when that organisation was banned. Does he agree that face-to-face contact and open lines of communication are more important than headlines about banning organisations?

Simon Hughes: I do agree. In Northern Ireland, the conversation was sometimes carried on through intermediaries. History shows that conflicts are resolved only by communication, often conducted by people who used to hold high office and who are slightly freer when they leave it. Those people may often not be well known public figures.
	In that context, I want to pay a particular tribute to the Norwegian Government. London's Norwegian church is in my constituency, and I have had dealings with the community over many years. The Norwegian Government have been assiduous in offering their services in these matters, and they have done great work. I hope that they and other members of the international community will be given the opportunity to do more in the future. In the past, it has often been people outside Sri Lanka who have been able to facilitate communication and bring people together.
	I turn now to the make-up of Sri Lanka, which is understood by everyone here, but not by everyone outside. The Minister told us that the island has a population of about 20 million, of whom about three quarters are Sinhala. Of the rest, about 13 per cent. are Tamil and about 5.5 per cent. are Muslim, with smaller groups making up the total. However, it should be noted that people in the various Sinhala, Tamil or other communities do not all share the same opinion about matters.
	Three languagesSinhalese, Tamil and Englishare the most commonly spoken. Nearly two thirds of people are Buddhist, but there are significant Hindi, Muslim, Christian and other communities.
	From the early days of independence, Sinhala nationalism became the flavour of the Sri Lankan Government, and Buddhism was given a particular status. We in Britain must not be hypocritical about that, as protestant Anglican Christianity has a similar status here. I consider that to be unhelpful in our modern age, and believe that no denomination or faith should have special status here. The situation in Sri Lanka is certainly not helpful: if there is to be progress, it must be accepted that all peoples, major languages and faiths deserve equal recognition.
	I hope that the Sri Lankan Government understand that, although I know that they, like Governments in India, often depend on nationalist votes. However, if Sinhala nationalism can be justified, so can Tamil nationalism. An accommodation between the two sides needs to be reached.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again, and I shall try not to trespass on his patience. He is giving the House the history of what is a sad, tragic but utterly beautiful island, yet many of my Tamil constituents tell me that the first Governments after independence were made up of people from all communities, representing all strands of opinion in all parts of the island. The unity Government were destroyed not by a Tamil national movement, but by the sort of movement that he has described, which was not based in either the north or the east of the island.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Sri Lanka became independent in 1949, nearly 60 years ago. The great consensus was broken in 1956, when Solomon Bandaranaike was elected
	on a wave of Sinhalese nationalism,
	in the words of the BBC. At that time, Sinhala was made the island's sole official language and other measures were introduced to bolster Sinhalese-Buddhist feeling.
	That is how the problem started. After independence, the majority Government said, We are the bosses now, and no one else will get a look in. That Government represented two thirds of the people, and a 70 per cent. religious majority. The votes that were cast reflected that, as did the make-up of the Sri Lankan Parliament. As the situation in Sri Lanka in 1956 did not resemble the situation in Northern Ireland now, where there is a guarantee of participation across the communities, the island's Government have been able to impose their will on minorities. Only in 1976, 20 years later, was the LTTE formed in response. Eventually, Tamils in the north and east, particularly in the Jaffna peninsula and along the north-east coast, said, We want our place, too. You've given us enough stick for 20 years. Since then, the Tamils have given as good as they got.
	All the independent monitoring shows that the fault lies on both sides. I absolutely condemn suicide bombers, the use of child soldiers and the terrible violence, but let us remember that it started with the majority oppressing the minority. Unless there is recognition of that factwhat Tutu, Mandela and others call peace and reconciliation based on putting right injusticesthere will be no progress.

Jeremy Corbyn: If the hon. Gentleman checks, I think he will find that the issue started somewhat earlier, with the treatment of the plantation Tamils in the early 1950s, which should have been a sign of the problems to comethe majority language and the legislation to which he referred.

Simon Hughes: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. He and I are roughly the same age and it was at about the time we were born that the Indian Tamil workers were disfranchised and the problems started, but the really heavy Government reaction came a few years later and it was much later before the LTTE responded.
	Bluntly, unless the Government of Sri Lanka, under whichever President or Prime Minister, understand that without autonomy in defined areas and self-governmentthere is a debate about how that is defined, but the LTTE has said that it is willing to look at options other than independencethere will be no progress to a solution. It will not happen. Obviously, the solution has to be negotiated locally, just as negotiations on the concept of devolution of power to Northern Ireland were needed before there could be a breakthrough. There was rising nationalism in Scotlandless in Wales, although there was military action even in Wales, with the Welsh Liberation Army and little bomb blasts such as the one in Tryweryn. Apart from Northern Ireland, which was a big thing, we experienced only little things in this country, but they show that unless there is recognition of the need for autonomy there cannot be progress.
	The Government of Sri Lanka must not run away from the need to accept that there will have to be autonomy and a democratic process. The people must be allowed to vote freely and decide which parts of Sri Lanka should have self-government. If Ukraine, which I respect greatly, can give self-government to Crimea and life can go on, Sri Lanka must give self-government to the Tamils, where they want it.
	Of course, that does not mean that all the people in Tamil areas will be Tamils, just as in Northern Ireland communities are not confined to particular areas; Tamils will live in Colombo, just as Sinhalese will live on the east coast and in the north. There must be access. The roads have to be open so that people can travel. There must be no no-go areas. However, we have to make sure that the Government of Sri Lanka understand that they will not make progress unless they accept the principle of self-government.

Peter Luff: What is the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the LTTE's commitment to democracy? The apparent absence of that commitment must be an inhibiting factor in ceding independence or autonomy to the Tamils.

Simon Hughes: I do not know the up-to-date position, I have not recently had a conversation with the Tamil leaders. From the point of view of the Sri Lankan Government, if I was seeking peace I should be terribly frustrated. The ceasefire agreement was broken and recent incidents are unacceptable. The lessons of Northern Ireland are that we just have to keep on going. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) said, the helpful things are the conversations and initiatives behind the scenes, such as those taken by Norway, and, sometimes in the past, the Indian Government or the British Government. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was positive and proactive when he was a Minister. I hope that the Commonwealth will do more and take more responsibility.
	It is not encouraging when there is yet another suicide mission or bombing, but all the independent objective advice shows that there have been faults and terrible actions on both sides. Therefore, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen so wisely said, it is no good going back over history all the time. We have to move on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what position he and his party are adopting? Is he really saying to the Sri Lankan Government that there ought to be an independent Tamil-led area within Sri Lanka, or would it be part of a federated or confederated process? What did he envisage when he made his remarks?

Simon Hughes: I can be very specific. Our view as a partyit is my view alsois that the conflict will be brought to an end only by direct negotiations between the Government and LTTE and by the reaching of a political settlement that allows for a suitable degree of autonomy for Tamil people within a peaceful and secure Sri Lanka. We have not argued for an independent Tamil Eelam. We have argued for negotiations about autonomy between the Tamil representatives and the Government. That autonomy will have to be negotiated, because it has to be respected. It is absolutely not for me, from here, to prescribe whether there should be a federal state or a confederal state, but I am absolutely clear that a unitary state with no proper devolution beyond what has been offered so far will not work. Things have to go further.
	Of course there is local government in Sri Lanka and there has been devolution. There have been proposals on the table in the past, but that is no good if the President says that there will have to be a unitary state, in the old-fashioned sense of one state with no subdivisions. Our view is that there should be a suitable degree of autonomy within a peaceful, secure and stable Sri Lanka. If later the Tamil people voted for independence in a free electionunharassed and without any pressurethat would be a separate issue and would raise other issues. The world would have to accommodate that through proper international recognition processes.
	My party has supported both Conservative and Labour Governments in their efforts to achieve peace and it has supported the international peace processes. The Liberal Democrats share the sense of urgency that has been expressed. As was said, we now have an additional responsibility, together with the international community, to make further efforts to get the peace process back on track. We can express a view here, but unless there is a formal process in which people are engaged, there cannot be progress.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the process instituted by the Government of Sri Lanka to draw on the views of all of the political parties among the Sinhalese community to try to seek a consensus, as the Government say, on a proper mechanism to devolve power as part of a settlement?

Simon Hughes: I do. There is lots of good practice. As we all know, lots of countries in the world are having to think about how to accept the devolution of power in different ways. The French and the Spanish have done it. The Germans started it after the war. The Canadians are another example. These are difficult, tense issues, and there is lots of world experience. We have done it in the United Kingdom. People's national identity becomes more important, so they want more power.
	I have Tamil constituents, as do many of us in the House. My next meeting with the high commissioner will take place next week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. We both also have colleagues who are councillors in our boroughs. He will speak about his. I have a councillor colleague who is our deputy mayor in Southwark. She is a Tamil and a Christian. She has supported the battle for self-determination. She is not a terrorist. People like that in this country, who have been supporters of the struggle, often have a pretty hard time because of a very ungenerous viewI am choosing pretty mild wordsby the Sri Lankan authorities. I regularly get messages that people who take that view and are active in politics in Britain will be charged, arrested or locked up. I just say, Look, if you think that people in this country have broken the law, arrest and charge them, but you can't win the argument in this country by seeking to suppress the voices of dissent. People of all views in the Sinhala and Tamil communities must be allowed to say their piece. Perhaps that will not be popular with the Government of Sri Lanka. Many of us are not popular with our Governments from time to time, but, in a democracy, people are allowed to express dissident opinions.
	I hope that there will be a slightly more balanced view in this country so that all people of peace and good will, including the politicised ones who want justice and have members of their families who have been killed, may see peace come in their lifetime. Like others, I want to go back to Sri Lanka and see a peaceful country in which all people can be proud of their community, faith and background and in which the terrible bloodcurdling litany of death and destruction over 20 years or more will have ended. I hope that Britain will always step up to the plate, as the Minister has indicated we will, and realise that we have a huge responsibility for our friends. In that way, I hope that we will all have peace soon.

Sadiq Khan: I have never visited Sri Lanka. My knowledge of the problems in Sri Lanka stems from my experience as the MP for Tooting for the past two years and as a councillor for Tooting ward between 1994 and 2006. There is a large Tamil diaspora in Tooting. In my experience, the Tamil community has helped to regenerate Tooting town centre and contributed to Tooting's vibrancy. It has also brought cultural enrichment to our community in Tooting and Wandsworth.
	Members of the community first came to the area as asylum seekers. Many of them became refugees and went on to become nationals. Most of them then became British citizens. They are proud to be Tooting Tamils. Tooting has a vibrant and well-used temple: the Sivayogam temple on Upper Tooting road. The White Pigeon charity on Upper Tooting road does a great deal of charitable work in Sri Lanka. The Tamil rehabilitation organisation is on Garratt lane. The South London Tamil welfare group, Wandsworth Tamil welfare association and many other groups do a tremendous amount of work not only in the community in Tooting, but in Sri Lanka. In my contribution I will articulate the concerns that those groups have raised with me. My experience of Sri Lanka comes through the eyes of my constituents, many of whom come to my surgeries to seek help and still have family members and loved ones in Sri Lanka.
	As hon. Members have said, over the past four months fighting has continued to rage between the Sri Lankan armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelamthe LTTE. The 2002 ceasefire agreement that was signed by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE now seems like years ago. It is worth remembering that up to 2002, the civil war in Sri Lanka had claimed the lives of at least 64,000 people, most of whom were civilians. Men, women and children were indiscriminately killed or seriously injured.
	The Sri Lanka monitoring mission made some progress. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) commented, Norway deserves tributes for the role that it has played, but the US Government, the EU, Japan, the Indian Government and ourselves have also played a big role.
	Many of us have used the BBC as our source of reference. It estimates that 4,000 more people, mainly Tamil civilians, have been killed in Sri Lanka since late 2005, when violence began to escalate once again, bringing the total number of people killed since the outbreak of civil war to 68,000. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for reminding us of the history of Sri Lanka and where any blame for the civil war should be apportioned.
	Hon. Members will be aware that although the LTTE was a party to the 2002 ceasefire agreement, it wasand still isproscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 in the UK. The US and India have also proscribed the LTTE and declared it to be a terrorist organisation. In mid-May 2006, the European Parliament passed a resolution in support of declaring the LTTE a terrorist organisation. On 29 May, it was confirmed that EU Foreign Ministers had decided to list the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. On 31 May, the EU announced in a statement that sanctions against the LTTE were in force.
	I accept that in the UK it is open to the LTTE to challenge proscription using the route set out in the Terrorism Act, and I understand that when the Home Secretary recently met Tamil groups he made it quite clear that any challenge would have to be made via that route. I take on board the serious points made by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is right that they should be addressed. However, may I tell the Government and colleagues that there is a perception among the Tamil diaspora of double standards? The House of Commons Library note states, in the context of violence:
	The main protagonists are the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE.
	There is a belief that only the LTTE has been penalised. The Tamil diaspora cannot be confident that the EU is an impartial broker, following its declaration that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation, and there are fears that that will seriously weaken the Sri Lanka monitoring mission.
	Colleagues will know from other debates in the Chamber going back many years the arguments about one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. Concerns have been raised by my constituents about a dirty tricks campaign that is being waged against the Tamil diaspora in the UK. We have all seenand it has already been mentionedthe press coverage on 21 April 2007, in which a representative of the Sri Lankan embassy in London claimed that the LTTE was behind a scam involving petrol station employees in the UK, in which credit cards were cloned, PIN numbers recorded and money withdrawn and allegedly used by the LTTE. On the other hand, Humberside police say clearly and unequivocally:
	Our evidence does not suggest that there is a definite link with Sri Lankan gangs.
	There is a perception in the communities of the Tamil diaspora that allegations and aspersions can be made without their having any recourse to try to clear their name. We should understand their frustration, and colleagues have articulated the snowballing of perceived unfairness, whether real or not, leading to other forms of discomfort and actions that we all condemn.

Kim Howells: We are not taken in by anybody's spin or attempt to subvert what we hope will be the even-handed treatment of all the members of the Sri Lankan diaspora in this country, whether they are Sinhalese, Muslim or Tamil. We are very well aware that all sides are pretty adept at using propaganda to further their own ends. We were not born yesterday, and we did not come in on a pineapple boat from Sri Lanka. We know exactly what is going on and we are watching it very carefully. We will make sure that we are even-handed and that everyone receives fair treatment.

Sadiq Khan: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, which will be welcomed and received in the spirit in which they were made. He and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development are friends of Sri Lanka, and will not be taken in by spin.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend has made many important statements on the Floor of the House, and the statement that he has just made is so important that it needs to be underlined. My Tamil friends, neighbours and constituents have been agonisingly hurt by the statement that there is some sort of terrorist funding scam operating at petrol stations. It is crucial that my hon. Friend put that lie to bed, and it is important, too, that we recognise that many members of the Tamil community work extremely hard in petrol stations. We should be grateful to them for their hard work and their contribution to the economy, and we should not seek to spin them into an atmosphere of blame.

Sadiq Khan: I am extremely grateful for that intervention from my friend and hon. Friend. I deliberately made a point in my introduction about the cultural enrichment that the Sri Lankan community has brought to Tooting and London, as well as the regeneration to which it has contributed. What impact do those press reports have on community cohesion, if labels about the Tamil community are so easily thrown around?
	Colleagues have referred to atrocities in Sri Lanka, and they are right that the blame rests with all partiesthere is no single party that can be completely exonerated. However, we must not ignore the fact that impartial international organisations objectively confirm the atrocities that have been committed. The UN working group on disappearances commented in December 2005 that
	of more than 12,278 cases of disappearances in Sri Lanka submitted to the government, 5,708 remain unclarified and this is the highest number of disappearances in the world next to the case of Iraq with 16,517 disappearances.
	The problem of internally displaced persons and refugees has been mentioned by many of my colleagues. The Tamil-speaking population of Sri Lanka has, by percentage, one of the highest rates of internally displaced people in the world today. Most of them have been bombed out of a number of locations. Most estimates show that more than one third of the remaining Tamil-speaking population on the island are displaced and living in makeshift camps and welfare centres. In addition, many others have recently fled to India, which has already had hundreds of thousands of refugees from past periods of the conflict and from the tsunami.
	The Tamil diaspora represents one third of the Tamils from Sri Lanka and now numbers over 1 million persons. The camps for the IDPs are in deplorable condition, owing to lack of food, water, sanitation, medical care, schooling and adequate shelter. Some of the IDPs are housed in schools, making the schools for those local communities unusable. In a moving contribution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, mentioned the impact that visiting the IDPs had had upon him.
	In its report in December 2005, the United Nations committee against torture commented on the atrocities in Sri Lanka, and in March 2006 the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions submitted a powerful report. Finally, in relation to independent corroboration, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated clearly and unequivocally in December 2006, in a powerful report that I recommend to all colleagues:
	There is an urgent need for the international community to monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as these are not merely ceasefire violations, but grave breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law . . . In the latest phase of its ethnic conflict, now more than 20 years old, Sri Lanka has witnessed a re-emergence of some of its most frightening ghosts: disappearances, abductions and killings by unidentified gunmen.
	In Tooting, the White Pigeon charity, which does a tremendous amount of invaluable work in Sri Lanka, tells me that a few weeks ago White Pigeon's prosthetic technical workshop was bombed and destroyed by the air force in the Mullaitivu district. The charity also tells me that the ongoing daily bombing by the air force is adding many new physical disabilities to the people with whom it works in the Tamil communities.
	I am told by the Tamil rehabilitation organisation in Tooting that there are 160,000 people whom it is helping who have no food and lack water and shelter. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about the A9 road, which is a main road into the northern province that has been blocked since August 2006. The blockage has prevented clothes, medicine and food from getting to people in Jaffna.
	The UK and Sri Lanka have a special historical relationship. Until 1948, Sri Lanka was part of the British empire, and since 1948 and Sri Lanka's independence, it has been part of the Commonwealth. Sri Lanka also has a special relationship with the Labour party. It was a Labour Government who gave Sri Lanka its independence. We have a special role to play in helping Sri Lanka in its current troubles. I call on my Government to use our special relationship to persuade all the parties and factions to recommit to the 2002 agreement.
	I agree that terrorism and violence, whether state-sponsored or not, can never be the way to achieve a negotiated solution in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. I am aware that the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has done and will continue to do may lead the way to progress being made. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that any advice and help that we can give, based on our experiences in Northern Ireland, will continue.
	The international players must square a circle, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) commented. Although they accept that extensive autonomy for the north-east is the only realistic basis for a sustainable peace, they do not wish to reward the LTTE for its actions over the past few years. Once again, there are lessons that can be learned not only from Northern Ireland, but perhaps from South Africa. I am pleased that the Home Office has looked again at how we treated asylum seekers, and I welcome the fact that Sri Lanka has at last been taken off the white list of safe countries. Its inclusion in the list was causing my constituents and those of other hon. Members huge problems.
	An early return to negotiations is crucial. I ask our Government to continue to use all the levers, public and private, at their disposal to alleviate the suffering of all the Sri Lankan people, so that peace and tranquillity can return to that beautiful island once again.

Peter Luff: It is a great privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be called to speak in this debate, which is on a very important subject. It would be possible to take the Panglossian view that the affairs of Sri Lanka have no impact on us and are a matter of local concern for that country on which we can turn our backs, but that would be not only immoral, but blinkered. I therefore welcome this debate and I congratulate the Minister on the tone in which he opened it. I was particularly moved by the speech made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I wish every success in his work. I was also impressed by the tone struck by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who spoke for the Opposition.
	What always concerns me in such debates is where we should strike the balance between what it is right and proper for the British Parliament to say and where matters must be left to local populations to determine for themselves. I am thinking, for example, of the parallel debate about Kashmira matter that I am convinced must be left to the Pakistani and Indian Governments to resolve for themselves, and on which it is wrong for us to start prescribing solutions. I am nervous about some of what has been said in this debate so far today. I am not even sure that the Liberal Democrats are right to have gone as far as they have done in prescribing a solution. The people of Sri Lanka must have the opportunity to determine for themselves what they want to happen.
	In that context, I fully support the calls that have been made for dialogue, which is clearly an important part of the process, as we saw in Northern Ireland. This period has, however, been an extraordinarily violent one in Sri Lanka's history. There have been some 4,000 dead since 2005 and 70,000 or so dead since the violence began in 1983. To put that in context, leaving Iraq on one side, about 7,000 deaths a year occur in the world because of terrorist-related activities. One can see how big an issue the violence is in international terms.
	I intervened on the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to inquire about the LTTE's commitment to democracy. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I have severe reservations about whether the LTTE is seriously committed to a democratic process. Its leader is on the record as wanting to establish a one-party independent Tamil state without democratic elections. I see in the LTTE an organisation that is led by a very dangerous individual whose techniques and ruthlessness have caused great concern. Although I share the views expressed by all hon. and right hon. Members in saying that dialogue is important, I question whether the LTTE is an organisation that is capable of holding such dialogue. I hope that I am wrong; I would like to be so. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I pointed out that our deputy high commissioner in Sri Lanka will tomorrow be engaging in dialogue with the political wing of the LTTE. I hope that that dialogue is profitable and constructive, but I worry about what we are dealing with in the LTTE. It is a sophisticated and well-equipped organisation, uniquely so for a terrorist organisationand I regard it as a terrorist organisation that can fight on land, on sea and in the air, although it is wrong to describe it as having an air force; I think that there is one light aircraft [ Interruption. ] I am told that there are five aircraft, but they have significantly enhanced its fighting capabilities.
	Unless the conflict in Sri Lanka is dealt with, not only will it place an intolerable burden on the people of that war-torn country, but there will be a danger that the LTTE's techniques will act as an inspiration for other so-called freedom fighters elsewhere in the world and other terrorist groups.
	I am also nervous about the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the role of the Indian Government in the dispute. We have been very careful about involving India in this matter. I have in my hands a map from the Tamil Nadu Liberation Front. It is a map of greater Tamil Nadu, which of course takes into its compass most of the southern states of India, as well as north and east Sri Lanka. We remember what happened last time India involved itself, in a military sense, in the affairs of Sri Lankait led to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is aware, though, that there are 60 million Tamil people living in south India, and there are also large numbers of refugees from Sri Lanka living in India. India therefore has an involvement whether it wishes to or not, because it has to take account of its neighbour.

Peter Luff: Of course, that is a geopolitical point with which one cannot argue. However, India has to play its cards with great care. It will find it difficult, for similar reasons to those that often make it difficult for Britain to intervene in post-colonial situations. In a way, the dispute has its roots in the British colonial handling of this troubled island.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We all recognise that India's involvement in this problem is very sensitive, as well as what happened in the past when it became involved militarily. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) pointed out, there is a big Tamil population in Tamil Nadu, and there is a suspicion that a lot of support of one kind or another, particularly financial, comes from that state. If we are to try to defeat this terrorist problem, it is important that the international community should include the Indian Government in discussions and intelligence-sharing.

Peter Luff: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I sincerely hope that that process is already happening.
	Fundraising is an important issue for the LTTE. Two Tamil fundraisers were recently prosecuted in Australia, which is causing great controversy in the Tamil community there. The purposes of their fundraising activity must be properly established by due judicial process in Australia. It is unhelpful to see people who are, I am sure, perfectly honourable Tamil nationalists attacking the Australian Government for daring to challenge those people's fundraising activities. When I think of the recent protests in Paris and Zurich by Tamil communities in France and Switzerland, I worry about the presumption that anyone who dares to attack the LTTE is in some sense attacking the Tamil people. I do not see that connection. Similarly, those who dared to attack Sinn Fein were not attacking the Catholic cause in Northern Ireland.
	The fact is that violence is always wrong morally, and also politically, because it never produces the outcome that one seeks. When we attack the LTTE for its violence, we are doing so for sound reasons. It is in the Tamil people's own interests that the LTTE abandon its violence. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that the blame is far from being on one side. I have here the Human Rights Watch report on human rights in Sri Lanka, which graphically details the shortcomings of the LTTE and of the Sri Lankan Government.

Keith Vaz: If an organisation remains proscribed and isolated, how can it participate in a dialogue that could bring peace to Sri Lanka?

Peter Luff: That is a conundrum. I have to say that I support the Government in allowing the organisation to remain proscribed. It is difficult to see how an organisation that takes part in such abhorrently violent activitiesfor example, it uses child soldiers as part of its campaign of violencecan be anything other than proscribed. The LTTE has an opportunity to demonstrate a much greater understanding of the challenges that that poses to Governments such as ours. I would welcome it were the Government able to lift that restriction, but I do not see how they can in the current environment.

Justine Greening: The key point is the trend in the escalation in violence. One can make a comparison with the IRA and Sinn Fein, which became far more formally linked in with the peace process in Ireland after taking clear steps to show that they were withdrawing from their previously violent past.

Peter Luff: We are in a chicken-and-egg situation. I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. It is always difficult to decide who should make the first move in a dialogue for peace.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My intervention on the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about proscription was important. The Sri Lankan Government encouraged him to talk to senior representatives of LTTE and the Tamil community. If such peace negotiations can take place in Sri Lanka, it is much easier. When organisations are not proscribed, it is easier for a peace process to take place.

Peter Luff: I note my hon. Friend's comment, which speaks for itself.
	I do not want Sri Lanka to become a political issue in the United Kingdom through the presence of a significant diaspora. That diaspora is here because of the violence. Its members have been driven away from their island and are effectively refugees from that dreadful violence. It is a wonderful community, which does a huge amount for us. Estimates of its size vary between 150,000 and 200,000. Reference has been made to the work its members offer on petrol station forecourts, but they do much more than that. A phenomenally high proportion of the Tamil communitysome 2,500work as doctors in the national health service. They do a great deal for us and we should be grateful to them.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important messages that we can send today is that there must be a ceasefire? Innocent people who have not done anything to anyone are being killed on a daily basis and that must stop now.

Peter Luff: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that both sides take courageous steps to achieve the ceasefire that we all crave. I have no axe to grind, except that when I hear of a death in the name of politics I am angry. I worry that today we have heard criticism of the Sri Lankan Government for closing roads to the north and east of the country, thus inhibiting reconstruction after the dreadful tsunami. My reading of the behaviour of the LTTE in those areas is that it, too, inhibits reconstruction. It suits such a group to keep people in some subjugation and blame others for their misfortune. That is a familiar technique of tyrants through the ages. Although I deplore any action by the Sri Lankan Government that makes reconstruction more difficult, the LTTE inhibits the process, and that may suit its political objectives.
	I want to emphasise my concern about human rights more broadly in Sri Lanka. I referred to the Human Rights Watch document, whichas far as I can seesets out objectively and fairly the problems on both sides. It is a powerful account. I note that the Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting Sri Lanka next week. The Christian community in that country suffers considerable persecution at the hands of the Government.
	The current edition of the Foreign Office human rights report mentions Sri Lanka's anti-conversion laws and moves
	to consolidate the position of Buddhism by constitutional amendment and legislation that would control 'unethical conversion', in part through criminal sanctions. The bill, which appears to undermine the guarantees of religious freedom enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution and to be inconsistent with Sri Lanka's international human rights obligations, is still being debated.
	Things may have moved on since the report was written. It continues by saying that
	there have been consistent and credible reports of harassment, intimidation, destruction of property and occasional violence against Christians over the last three years... Sri Lankan authorities' lack of capacity to protect Christians and members of other faiths, and their failure to prosecute those responsible for inciting and committing violent acts
	are highlighted. That is an especially worrying example of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka that are firmly at the door of the Sri Lankan Government. For even-handedness, we must understand that there are problems on both sides.
	We must be careful about imposingor being seen to or wishing to imposespecific solutions to any internal conflict in a sovereign state from these Benches in the United Kingdom. However, we need to convey a clear message that terror begets only terror, and violence begets violence. That is an iron rule of politics and history. In a world hungry for peace, as we all are now, it is my view that if the LTTE could bring itself to renounce its terrorist activities and take the first brave steps to peace, it would find that respectability would follow remarkably quickly on the heels of such a brave and right decision.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) because of his great interest in sub-continent matters. It always interesting to hear what he has to say about countries other than India, in which he has a particular interest. I did not agree with everything in his contribution and in my contribution I will explain where I disagree. What is significant, however, is that for the first time we are debating these issues in Parliament today.
	Had it not been the eve of local elections in other parts of the countryother than Londonthe Chamber would probably not have a majority of London Members in their places. I realise that many members of the Tamil community live within London and the M25 area, but they also live in other parts of the countryLeicester being one where many members of the Tamil community have settled.
	I want to pay a special tribute to the Minister for the Middle East. This date was originally chosen for a discussion between him and more than 60 MPs who had shown an interest in Sri Lankan issues, particularly in what is happening to the Tamil community. I think that he was surprised at the level of interest and he decided, of his own volition, to put to the Leader of the House the view that there should be a debate today. That has proved to be a much better way of dealing with these mattershaving an open debate involving as many MPs as possible on the Floor of the House.
	The Minister is, in my view, a special and exceptional Foreign Office Ministernot the usual type that we get. He is preparedI have seen him operateto listen to views without necessarily taking the Foreign Office line. On this issue, he has been particularly concerned to listen to the views of hon. Members, to understand them and to relate them to his own experience when he visited Sri Lanka. I thank him for his special interest. His remit is so large, as he has to look after at least a third of the worldhe would probably say the most interesting third of the world. On the two issues where I have engaged with himYemen and Sri Lankahe has been very forthright and listened very carefully to what I said. I thank him for his interest in what is happening there.
	I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). In all my discussions with members of the British Tamil community, I have found that they are full of praise for the work that he has done. As we heard today, he has not taken sides on the issues, but has focused the British Government on a particular problem. I am gratefuland I think that we are all gratefulfor the fact that he has brought to bear his vast experience of Northern Ireland, which must have been just as complicated as the situation in Sri Lanka.
	Apart from his day job, which he mentioned, he has allowed himself to go over to Sri Lanka in order to be the eyes and ears of our Prime Minister and to report back on these issues. I hope that we can formalise his role. He may not want that, but I think that it would be a good idea if the Government looked to formalise his role so that it was no longer just on an ad hoc basis. He could be given formal envoy status, which would allow him to play the role that we all would like to see this Parliament get involved with.
	On Monday, we established the House's first ever all-party Tamil group. I was privileged to be elected chair of the group; the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was elected vice-chair; the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) was elected secretary; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was elected treasurer, as was the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), in his absence in Scotland. That shows that it really is an all-party group, because all parties are represented in this cause.
	The group was determined not to be just like any other all-party group. We were determined to take the issue forward, and on that basis we agreed three things. First, at the end of September a delegation of all party members should visit Sri Lanka, particularly areas under the control of the Tamil Tigers, to engage in a dialogue in a positive and constructive way. We also agreed to invite the chief negotiator for the Tamil Tigers to visit the United Kingdom and to come to Parliament so that we could hear his views on what is happening.
	The third thing that we agreed was to hold a summit meeting here in July at which all the various parties could participate as a means of exploring how to take the issue forward. Although we have not had a debate of this kind in the House before, listening to the experience of so many right hon. Members and hon. Members reminds me that we have had many such discussions outside Parliament. It really is time to make progress, rather than simply discussing these issues from time to time as we do now.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) pointed out that we are also concerned with the Tamil community here, and that that is what drives us. Many of us are interested in foreign affairs, but what drives us as constituency MPs is our constituents coming to see us in our surgeries, at public meetings and at various projects in our constituencies to point out the contribution that the British Tamil community has made. When my hon. Friend mentioned the Tooting Tamils, I thought that that made them sound so British that they could be a local football club. They are as British as you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they make a full contribution to this country. They contribute to the economy and to the national health service, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out. Almost 2,500 Tamils work in the NHS, not just as GPs and other doctors; one of the leading pre-natal surgeons is based in a hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting.
	The British Tamils have become first-class contributors, and they therefore deserve to have us debate these issues in the House. For the reasons mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, they are constantly aware of what is happening to their friends and relatives in Sri Lanka. That is why they deserve to hear these issues discussed, and to have them taken forward, rather than just discussed in the usual parliamentary way.
	I was present at a very useful meeting that the British Tamil forum had with our Home Secretary, who reminded us of the phraseI cannot remember who said it originally, but I am sure that someone here will knowOne man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am sure that it was not the Home Secretary's phrase; he was merely reminding us of it. This was in the context of a discussion on how to lift the ban. I firmly believe that the ban on the Tamil Tigerscertainly as regards the way in which they operate in this countryshould be lifted as soon as possible.
	The proscription by the Government of various organisations in 2001 happened because of certain events that were occurring worldwide at the time, and we reacted by imposing that ban on a number of organisations, including a Sikh organisation that operated from my constituency. I know that Governments sometimes have to react in a knee-jerk manner, but six years have now passed and it is time to reconsider the ban and to look at ways in which we can help to ensure that the dialogue proceeds.
	I know that that is different from what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested, because he believes that we cannot hold discussions with people unless they renounce violence. As we have heard from colleagues on both sides of the House, however, without such discussions we would never have reached the stage at which we could look with mild amusement at a photograph of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Martin McGuinnesswith EU President Barroso in the middlesharing a joke. Other right hon. and hon. Members who have had to sit through debates on Northern Ireland, as have I, would never have believed that possible even a few years ago. However, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and many others, it has become possible. It is possible to move on, but we cannot move on unless we have a dialogue, and we cannot have a dialogue if we proscribe and ban the groups involved.

Susan Kramer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the Tamil community who have absolutely no interest in terrorism and who do not even consider themselves to be members of the LTTE are inhibited from speaking out because they are afraid of being tagged with the terrorist label? At a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I attended recently, there had to be a police presence because those people were so afraid that they would engender enmity from the community by holding that meeting.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is wrong for such people to be treated in that way and to feel that fear. Whoever is spinning that fearwhether it be the Sri Lankan Government or othersshould stop. Participating in the British political process is the right of every British citizen. Contrary to the view that those people are here as asylum seekers or refugeesan idea that has been mentionedthey are members of the settled community. Clearly, some are asylum seekers or seeking refugee status, but others are very well established here, and they should feel able to be open about their involvement in political meetings and the British political process. We need to make sure that that happens.
	It is therefore important that we take a lead, for the reasons mentioned by other Members. We have a responsibility, the historical ties with our country are profound and, as we have heard, this country gave independence to Sri Lanka. We have a special bond and relationship because of the large community living here and because of our previous responsibilities. We should seize the moment. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen is going to Sri Lanka again, and I hope that the Minister of State will also visit in the near future, as he started a process that he ought to continue. If he does continue that process, whenever he visits, that would be useful.

Kim Howells: To reassure my right hon. Friend, I can tell him that I will shortly go back to Sri Lanka, and I hope to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) there so that we can take whatever measures are necessary to try to push the process forward.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted to hear that. When I met my hon. Friend, he said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen was his best friend in the House. Sri Lanka is a good place for best friends to meet, and if they manage to move the process forward, it will be good business for best friends to conduct.

Stephen Pound: I make the point with considerable trepidation, but my right hon. Friend referred to the British Government giving independence to Sri Lanka. May I tell him that several of my constituents who have heard me use that expression have said that they would much prefer the wording to be that the British Government returned independence to Sri Lanka? I make no criticism of my right hon. Friend, whose record is impeccable, but perhaps we should consider using that verbal figuration on the Floor of the House.

Keith Vaz: I am more than happy to be corrected by my hon. Friend and am happy to use that terminology in the House. If I lapse again, I am sure that he will remind me.

Peter Luff: On the subject of correction, may I correct myself? I was seeking to convey to the House not that such people were refugees or asylum seekers, but that they had been driven from Sri Lanka against their will, often because of discrimination, persecution or violence, and many of them would prefer to have lived their entire lives in Sri Lanka, rather than being here.
	On another subject, is the right hon. Gentleman convinced

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, interventions are to be brief.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is allowed to make a correction, but not another speech in the middle of mine.
	We have heard the shocking statistics and it is right that we should repeat them again and again: 80,000 internally displaced people; 900,000 children, 15 per cent. of the total child population, living in conflict-affected areas, and more than 300,000 directly affected by the conflict. The figures have varied between different Members' speeches, but I have been given the figure of 68,000 lives claimed by the war since 1983, with 4,000 deaths since November 2005, and, according to the United Nations, more than 300,000 civilians displaced by the renewed fighting as of April 2007. We need to take account of those shocking statistics if we are to make progress.
	Yesterday, the Sri Lankan President unveiled proposals to abolish the executive presidency, adopt a bicameral parliamentary system and ensure that both the police and the armed forces are more multi-ethnic. That, however, does not deal with the basic problems that have created the present difficulties. All ethic groups should be treated equally, and they and their values should be respected. I hope that those proposals signal a change, but I do not think that the change will happen unless we move it forward.
	I mentioned the Tamil Tigers and the ban that we imposed on them. I hope very much that the LTTE will be able to challenge that ban. When we met the Home Secretary he said that one challenge had been successful, so they are in new territory, but they certainly have my support in their desire for a lifting of the ban. We heard that the Minister would be visiting Sri Lanka, and that is terrific.

Andrew Pelling: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of our role here. We represent many members of the Tamil diaspora in our constituencies: there is a large Tamil community in south London, for instance. The right hon. Gentleman has also raised the important issue of abuse of human rights, which has occurred on all sidesand, indeed, within each side. But another reason for debating this subject is our real interest in the success and prosperity of Sri Lanka, and in sharing in the great growth that has taken place in the south Asian economies. We have a global strategic interest in Sri Lanka. The Chinese are investing there, and perhaps taking their own approach to the balance of power in that part of south Asia. The United Kingdom therefore has a self-interest in Sri Lanka's enjoyment of peace and prosperity.

Keith Vaz: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is the new secretary of the all-party parliamentary Tamil group. His points are extremely valid.
	The debate is to be wound up by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is currently sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). Both their constituencies contain large numbers of British Tamils.
	When we consider the issue of international aid, I want to know whether when we give aid to Sri Lanka, as we should, the point is made to the Sri Lankan Government that it is important for that aid to reach the people whom it is intended to reach. While we support the Government in the aid process, they have a responsibility to ensure that a dialogue begins.
	If we have achieved anything this week in setting up the all-party group and debating this issue on the Floor of the House, I hope that we have created the climate and conditions for dialogue: dialogue between Tamil groups, including the Tamil Tigers, and the Sri Lankan Government; dialogue between Tamil groups and the international community; and, indeed, dialogue between the Foreign Office and the Home Office. I was very surprised to hear from the Minister of State that he had not had a chance to meet the Home Secretary to discuss these issuesthrough no fault of his own, no doubt; I am sure that, given his Foreign Office responsibilities, his diary is awful. But I hope that he will meet the Home Secretary, because the issue affects both the Foreign Office and the Home Office. I hope it will be recognised that dialogue is the only way in which to bring peace to a troubled but beautiful island.

Shailesh Vara: It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	I am very pleased that the House has taken the opportunity to debate such an important subject. With so many conflicts around the world, and with our own armed forces engaged in so many places overseas, it is sometimes easy to overlook the ongoing difficulties in countries such as Sri Lanka. I compliment those on both Front Benches for taking such a conciliatory tone in their speeches, and concluding that there must be dialogue and a ceasefire. Although the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is not present at the moment, I want to say what a pleasure it was to listen to such an authoritative contribution as his.
	The difficulties in Sri Lanka have arisen for a number of reasons, not the least of them being the ethnic, cultural and religious divisions between the Tamil and Singhalese communities. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE is fighting for an independent homeland for the Tamil people. Tension between the Tamil and Sinhalese people has existed for many years, but a full-scale conflict has developed since the early 1980s, with armed groups operating in the north-east of the island, the area mainly populated by the Tamil minority. As we have heard, in the past 20 years some 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict and many more have been maimed and injured; almost 1 million people have been displaced from their homes. There remains the ever-present threat to many ordinary citizens of kidnap and murder, both of which have been a continuous feature of the conflict.
	It is important to remember that atrocities have been committed by both sides. When in 1983 riots resulted in the death of 2,000 Tamils, it was suggested by many that some of the blame lay with the Sri Lankan authorities. On the other hand, the LTTE has long recognised that fear and devastation can be caused by suicide bombers. It has used that deadly tactic on many occasions, maiming and killing hundreds of peopleoften innocent people.
	However, despite all the terror one thing is clear: both sides have demonstrated a capacity for peace. They did so when both sides approached the Norwegians to negotiate a ceasefire in February 2002. Unfortunately, that ceasefire now lies in tatters and the resumption of hostilities on both sides has led to some 4,000 people being killed over the past two years. There have been particularly worrying developments in the past few weeks; there is a real danger that Sri Lanka might end up in a state of civil war. Recent military pushes by the Sri Lankan army have led to the recapture of much of the Tamil-occupied land in the north and east of the island and, encouraged by its success, the army might well be preparing for another major offensive.
	It is noteworthy that on Monday 23 April  The Irish News reported:
	Sri Lankan Officials ordered Norway's Ambassador, who is trying to mediate a resumption of peace negotiations, to cancel a trip to the Tamil Tiger rebels' northern strongholds for security reasons.
	The report went on to speculate that that was likely to mean that a major military push by Government forces was imminent.
	Many contributors to the debate have spoken of the ban on the LTTE acting as a barrier to dialogue. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that some of the main people involved in the peace negotiationsthe Norwegiansare engaged in dialogue with the LTTE and the Government. We must take comfort and heart from that.

Simon Hughes: One of the reasons the Norwegians are still in such good standing is that Norway is not part of the European Union so it is not collectively responsible for the ban. Countries that have not taken the same view as the EU and the United States are likely in some respects to be more acceptable in the short term to assist in the process.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful for that contribution. It could be said that we have both angles covered, as the Norwegians are independent but they are also co-sponsors who have the support and assistance of the EU, the USA and Japan.
	If the Sri Lankan army is considering an extra push in the north-east of the island, that is a worrying development as it will lead to further suffering and loss of life. If the advances are resumed, it is likely that the LTTE will wish to reply in kind, and it could be years before there is a reduction in the violence.
	Meanwhile, the LTTE has started making deadly air strikes on both Government troops and the infrastructure of Colombo. There have recently been strikes on an oil depot and on the main airport in the capital city, timed to coincide with the cricket world cup final. The Foreign Office website describes the situation in Sri Lanka as no peace no war, but the brutal reality is that since the 2002 ceasefire the conflict has resumed and is in danger of escalating to a much greater scale. The ceasefire needs to be rekindled and the international community must make every effort to secure it.
	Britain has a historical connection, of course, with Sri Lanka, and we should do whatever we can to bring peace to the island. I am mindful, however, that some former colonies are wary of British involvement in their now independent countries, which is why our involvement should be handled with sensitivity, helping as is necessary and appropriate. The Norwegians, operating with the support of the USA, Japan and the European Union, successfully negotiated the February 2002 ceasefire. They deserve our utmost praise and respect, and we should offer them all the support that they need and want from us. The ceasefire may have collapsed, but to the Norwegians' credit they have continued to maintain good links with both sides in the conflict, which may lead to further peace proposals.
	We should also use our position in the international arena to encourage other countries to press both sides for peace. Britain has considerable influence in the United Nations by virtue of being a permanent member of the Security Council. Although we might sometimes have disagreements with our European Union counterparts, we still have influence in the Union. Nor should we forget our many friends in the Commonwealth, who should also be urged to press for peace.
	India, too, has a major role to play in this conflict, not least because of its proximity to Sri Lanka and its own large Tamil population in Tamil Nadu. As India heads toward becoming a 21st-century superpower, it is important that it be included in the peace negotiations because of its own vested interest and its global and regional influence, which is increasing daily.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman might well be aware of recent opinion polls in Sri Lanka suggesting that there is greater trust in India's performing the role of an international good partner than in any other country in the world.

Shailesh Vara: For that reasonas well as for the reasons of India's proximity and of Tamil Naduit is important that India is involved in any talks that take place. However, given that Norway is leading the way and has been successful in the past, it should continue in that vein, but with the support of any country that has the trust and confidence of the Sri Lankan people. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening the House about that opinion poll.
	We have successfully brought peace to Northern Ireland, a community previously riven by internal hatred and conflict. The bombs and bullets of just a decade ago have been laid to rest. Republicans and Unionists may not yet have forgiven and forgotten every single grudge and grievance from those troubled times, but they have stopped killing. We can share our experience of nurturing that peace process with the Sri Lankan Government and with the LTTE. As I said earlier, it was a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member for Torfaen discuss that very issue. However, before all these things can happen, both sides in the conflict must take action to stop the killing and mistrust. The LTTE must cease its attacks and the use of child soldiers and suicide bombers.
	There is also concern about overseas funding for the LTTE. Reference has been made to the arrest in Australia of two people suspected of seeking to divert funds raised for the tsunami disaster on Boxing day 2004, for the purpose of purchasing weapons for the LTTE. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could give us an assurance that the funds that were sent from Britain after the tsunami were subject to checks to ensure that they were not diverted. I would also ask the Minister to comment, to the extent that he has the information to do so, on the written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 9 October 2006, which stated that some 7.5 million had been designated to be spent in Sri Lanka on reconstruction after the tsunami, but only 4.5 million had been spent. Has more money been spent and are there measures in place to ensure that the funds are directed towards reconstruction and not used for other purposes, such as assisting parties to the conflict?
	The Sri Lankan Government must also take action. To start with, they could ensure equality for all their people, as previous contributors to the debate have mentioned, whether they be Tamil or Sinhalese. The Government should also stop their roadblocks, especially on the A9 highway to Jaffna. Only yesterday I was talking to someone from Sri Lanka who was very concerned that his sister in Jaffna is not having even one meal a day because of that roadblock, which is stopping medicine, food and clothing reaching the people of Jaffna, many of whom are innocent in the conflict.

Susan Kramer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will reply to the debate, it might be an opportunity for him to state that the British Government, working with the various non-governmental organisations in the area, are making forceful representations to reopen the blockaded road? As the hon. Gentleman said, the impact is devastating and is destroying communities that have historically been well-to-do, but are now in absolute poverty and dire crisis.

Shailesh Vara: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution and she makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government are doing to ensure that the misery and suffering that the blockade is causing ceases. If we are to have a ceasefire, we need dialogue, and that can happen only if the misery and suffering abate.
	The Sri Lankan Government must also ensure that rogue elements in their army are not acting independently against Tamils. Not only is that wrong and a violation of the human rights treaties that the Government of Sri Lanka signed up to, but it provokes and encourages the LTTE to seek revenge. As has been proved time and again around the world, not least in Northern Ireland, a cessation in violence has to be a precursor to productive peace talks. A negotiated settlement through peaceful means is the only way forward for both parties if they wish to see their people prosper.
	Sri Lanka as a country has enormous potential for the future. The people involved in the conflict need to recognise that the future of their country lies in investing in its future prosperity and not in bombs and bullets. In the 21st century, the world's centre of gravity is moving from Europe and the Atlantic to the south and the east. Sri Lanka needs to ensure that by continuing its conflict, it does not miss out on the opportunities that this century will bring for all the people in that region.
	Recent history has shown time and again that most conflicts are eventually resolved by dialogue. The LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government have a simple choice. They can either continue the conflict, with many more people suffering and dying on both sides, and decide to engage in dialogue at some future point, or they can engage in productive talks now and prevent the needless suffering and death that are the immediate alternatives.
	It really is time for both sides to engage in dialogue, to have a ceasefire and to ensure that peace once more reigns in that beautiful island. I thank the House for listening.

Joan Ruddock: I bring to this debate no expertise, and I have not been fortunate enough to have a holiday in Sri Lanka. However, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who has set up the all-party group, and I hope and trust that I will be able to participate in it.
	Like many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, a very significant number of my constituents arrived in this country as asylum seekers and refugees from Sri Lanka. They now belong to the Tamil community that thrives in Lewisham, and in my constituency of Lewisham, Deptford in particular. As others have said, the families are settled British citizens, and they bring a great sense of commerce and endeavour to our communities. They run not only petrol stations but convenience shops, and play various roles in the NHS and the IT industry. Members of the Tamil community make an extremely valued contribution, and I very much support their work. They also bring a sense of culture to my area, which I especially enjoy. I should like to mention Vani fine arts, where young children are taught to play the sitar. It is the most wonderful experience to be at one of their concerts.
	However, the Tamil community has a great and continuing sense of grievance, and members of it have made me aware of that for the two decades that I have represented the area in this House. In that time, I have seen blood-curdling films of the terrible atrocities committed against Tamils in Sri Lanka, and I have sometimes felt completely unable to suggest any way out of that terrible conflict.
	My feeling about the situation in Sri Lanka was the same as that I felt about Northern Ireland for many years. As a mere politician, I felt that I could not propose a way forward, but the breakthrough that came in 2002 was a great relief to the Tamils in this country. Sri Lanka is a place of great diversity, and the news that a peace process was under way was appreciated by people of many faiths.
	For quite a while, no political meetings were held in my constituency to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka. On looking back, and having read the excellent paper produced by the Library, it is clear that Sri Lanka has a history of absolute discrimination, with the minority being oppressed by the majority ever since independence. That oppression is so deep-rooted that, as with our experience with Northern Ireland, the beginning of a peace process is not seen as likely to produce a result in a short time. If the Sri Lankan Government had been more determined and committed to the peace process, or if the LTTE had shown more flexibility, it is possible that more success could have been achieved.
	I was therefore very distressed and alarmed when last summer the Tamil community in my area asked for another political meeting to discuss the appalling outbreaks of violence that had taken place. I went to that meeting and heard about the many grievances that people had. I also heard the horror stories about what people in Jaffna had suffered. There was a lack of food and medicine in the city, and people who previously had been entirely self-sufficient were now relying on people from Britain to get to them the drugs, money and so on that they needed. It is a matter of enormous concern to me, as it is to all Members who have contributed today, that the violence has continued to escalate and to add to the terrible toll of previous decades.
	It would appear that the hardliners on both sides are now in the ascendancy. I have been reading the catalogue of events that took place between January and April. The army has made significant progress in the east. Many towns and villages that were controlled by the LTTE are apparently now under the administration of the Karuna faction, which Human Rights Watch has alleged continues to recruit child soldiers, like its erstwhile allies in the LTTE. Defence expenditure, in a country that can hardly afford it, reportedly rose by 30 per cent. in 2006. The LTTE's capacity to retaliate has not entirely diminished, either. In recent weeks, as we have heard, it has shown that it has acquired some air capability by launching two aircraft attacks.
	I shall repeat what many colleagues have said today. Recent estimates suggest that about 4,000 more people have been killed in Sri Lanka since late 2005, bringing the total killed since the outbreak of the civil war to 68,000. In addition, many people have suffered injuries that will affect the rest of their lives, and tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes and are no longer able to carry on a normal existence.
	We are all grateful for the Norwegian-led peace efforts and I pay tribute to them. It is incredibly important that the Norwegians stay in Sri Lanka and that they do not take sides. It is also important that both sides in the conflictthe Government and the LTTEhave said that they would be willing to return to negotiations, although in truth we do not see that there is much prospect of that at the moment. That is why we all encourage the efforts of the UK Government, and particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
	I want to ask Ministers some questions that have been put to me by my constituents. I asked one in a formal parliamentary question last year about aid following the tsunami. In October, I received a detailed reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development about the amount of aid and where and on what it was to be disbursed. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will tell us how that aid was distributed. As others have said, it is critically important for us to know that the aid was distributed fairly to the people most in need and that aid destined for Tamil areas was not impeded by the Government or the LTTE. I hope my hon. Friend can give us some assurance about that.
	A point made by one my constituents was that we should not supply aid at all in the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka. I disagree with that view, so I hope that my hon. Friend can tell the House why it is important that we continue to give aid and that the aid iswe hopeused effectively.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend speaks with the great authority of a constituency representative of many members of the Sri Lankan community. Like her, I have had visits from community representatives who have noted that Her Majesty's Government in fact withheld 50 per cent. of the aid agreed, because the final delivery mechanism could not be guaranteed. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and many representatives of the community that we should withhold the entire aid package until we can guarantee that it will reach the people for whom it is intended and not subsidise those who may be oppressing them?

Joan Ruddock: I take the points that my hon. Friend has raised very seriously, because this is a real debate. I just remarked that I did not agree with the proposition that aid should be stopped, but in deciding which of us is making the right argument I will be dependent on the Minister's response at the end of the debate. We need to know where the aid is going and how it is being used to know whether we can justify continuing it. If we cannot justify that, we need to think about what other mechanisms exist. Could we use multilateral aid or other institutions? Are there vehicles through which some assistance could be given? I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution.
	My next point is perhaps not for my hon. Friend, but for those in government. I want to refer to another issue raised by my constituents: export licences. Inquiries that I have made reveal that 7 million-worth of arms were licensed for delivery to Sri Lanka in the last quarter for which figures are available. The licences were for, for example, armoured all-wheel drive vehicles, components for heavy machine guns, components for military distress signalling equipment, and many other types of equipment, including military aircraft ground equipment and communications equipment, and small arms ammunition. All of that is military equipment that could conceivably be used in the conflict. I know that our Government have obeyed the rulesthe EU and the national criteria by which we agree export licences. There is no question of wrongdoing. However, the issue has been raised by members of the Tamil community and I ask the Minister to consider whether those export licences and similar licences should continue when a live conflict is clearly under way in the country.
	Constituents have asked me to raise other points, both for our Government and, in particular, for the Government of Sri Lanka. Other Members have referred to the need to ensure that there is effective human rights monitoring. We know that there is a culture of impunity in the country, that the police do not investigate, and that charges are dropped. It is critical that the many disappearances are properly investigated and that the extra-judicial killings, which everyone knows go on in Sri Lanka and which are undertaken by both Government forces and funded paramilitaries, are investigated.
	Many people have spoken today about the need to recognise the LTTE. There are people in my community who believe that that is very important and that it should be done. It is criticalwhether or not it is recognisedto enter into dialogue. That is one thing that is constantly being demanded of our Government by my Tamil community. People think that the Government should be more proactive and should somehow try to engage more with all sides. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East tell us of the efforts that he is making in that regard and give us the assurance that those efforts will continue and apparently increase.
	Another point that my constituents have asked me to raise relates to the need for the Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate their commitment to a peace settlement by withdrawing to the 2002 ceasefire positions. There is a need to support Amnesty International's call to play by the rules, to investigate the murders and abductions of politicians, many of whom were sympathetic to the Tamil cause, and to investigate extortion and the abduction of Tamil business people by the paramilitaries and armed forces. The Sri Lankan Government should not force civilians to settle in areas of conflict as human shields against their will. The armed forces should be vacated from people's houses and compensation should be paid for those people's suffering. Those guilty of war crimes should be brought to the International Court of Justice. My constituents also make a plea to us and to the rest of the European Community not to curb the peaceful and democratic activities of Tamils living in the diaspora.
	I have particularly been asked to raise those points in today's debate. I have done so in tribute to members of my Tamil community, to the contribution that they make in our society and to their entirely justified search for justice and equality for the people of their community in their home country, which is where many of them would wish to be and where many of them have family and friends. I know that all of us would want proper respect in that country for all minorities and religions. We have learned lessons with such pain in Northern Ireland, and we want to see the same kind of positive result that we are about to enjoy in these islands. I thank the Ministers for making this enormously important debate possible. There has been unanimity in the House on the fact that human rights are indivisible and apply to all nations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: I was about to conclude my speech, but I shall willingly give way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the hon. Lady knows, the presidential commission is investigating several of the allegations that she has mentioned and is being observed by the international group of eminent persons, to which I referred in my speech. Does she support that process? Is it not essential that the process is thorough and that it concludes as soon as possible?

Joan Ruddock: Of course I would be supportive of that process. There will always be a range of views on how such investigations and inquiries are best carried out. However, we have a mechanism in place; let us see whether it can work and produce real accountability and conclusions that the international community can sign up to and support.
	We should call on all sides to resume the ceasefire. This might not be total war, but it is in no way peace. The process must be restarted effectively.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I tell the House that Back-Bench speeches have been averaging 16 minutes. If the Minister is to be given sufficient time to answer the points raised in the debate, it would be helpful if that average were brought down a little so that all the remaining Members who are seeking to catch my eye may contribute to the debate.

Justine Greening: I will certainly take note of your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Like many Members who have spoken, I have constituents with deep concerns, many of whom have come to my surgery to express their worry about what is happening to many of their relatives in Sri Lanka. Some of them are Tamils, but my Ahmadiyya Muslim community has recently expressed concerns about the Muslim community in Sri Lanka. I agree with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff): it is easy for us to give our views on what should happen in Sri Lanka. I intend to cite the concerns that my constituents have expressed to me, although I will perhaps fall short of saying what should be done, except by noting that a diplomatic and non-violent solution will be needed to find a long-term way out of the tragic situation in Sri Lanka.
	There is no doubt that Sri Lanka has suffered as a country for a number of decades and that it continues to do so. Some 3,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict since the resumption of armed hostilities in 2006. As hon. Members have said, 68,000 people have been killed since the start of the conflict. There is no doubt that that has brought immense personal hardship to many people who have been displaced across the countrysome 0.5 million in Sri Lanka have been displaced as a result of the conflict. I want to refer in particular to the tsunami, which added another 140,000 displaced people to the total of 0.5 million. Many of us who were aware of the troubles in Sri Lanka hoped that that tragedy on Boxing day 2004 would bring the country together and provide a common humanitarian cause so that people could set aside political differences and focus on what was required for the good of the whole country. It is unfortunate that, in retrospect, that did not happen, and I am concerned about what that means for, dare I say, ordinary Sri Lankans caught up in the conflict. Constituents who come to see me are particularly concerned about falling literacy rates among Sri Lankan children, whose education is constantly disrupted.
	As we have heard, there are many human rights problems, and the Human Rights Watch briefing to which reference was made earlier in the debate provides a great deal of evidence of an increase in communal violence between different ethnic groups in Sri Lanka, which is a matter of deep concern. The tsunami was a particular tragedy for Sri Lanka, because there was a ceasefire in 2002. Again, to make a comparison with Northern Ireland, I believe that the economic prosperity that resulted from political stability was one of the main reasons why people in Northern Ireland were not prepared to go back to the conflict, bombs and violence of the past. It is truly unfortunate that the tsunami may well prevent that bedding-down or entrenching of the economic development and benefits across Sri Lanka that might have made people less quick to become involved in armed conflict as a result of what they regarded as oppression.
	I do not think that there is a military solution to the problems in Sri Lanka. Surely, what must happen is a return to the ceasefire and discussion. That has proved to be the way forward in Northern Ireland, which is close to many of our hearts, and it is almost certainly the way forward in Sri Lanka. Democracy is surely the route through which people across the country can air their concerns, and it will enable Sri Lanka to recover in both economic and humanitarian terms after the tsunami and its effects. There is no doubt that that is the only route by which Sri Lanka can take advantage of the massive opportunities for economic growth in that part of the world. I can only hope on behalf of my constituents, who have many relatives in Sri Lankamany of them do extremely valuable jobs in our community but they would almost certainly like to be able to do them in their original community in Sri Lanka with their own familiesthat if our debate has done nothing else today, it has highlighted our concerns as a neighbour on the planet as well as our desire to work with Sri Lanka and all the groups there to see an end to the situation and the violence that so many people who live there face on a day-to-day basis.

Neil Gerrard: I am extremely pleased that we have had this debate this afternoon, as it is a long, long time since there was a debate on Sri Lanka in the House. Like many other hon. Members who have come to the Chamber to take part, I have a very significant number of Tamil constituents who, over the years, have talked to me about their concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. Of course, it is a long-standing problem, and in its present form the violence goes back over 20 years. The serious violence that occurred in 1983 was one of the factors that led to many members of the Tamil community coming to this country. There have been periods of hope, and as a result of the good work of the Norwegian Government there have been ceasefires. The ceasefire that was put in place in 2002 with high hopes clearly has not lasted and is in serious trouble.
	I shall not labour the points that have already been madethat the only way a solution will be reached is through negotiation, and that that must involve the LTTE. There is no question about that. A solution will not be reached without negotiations that involve the LTTE. That is true whether that organisation is recognised or banned in the UK. Reference has been made to keeping lines of communication open. I think it is not particularly helpful that the LTTE is banned, although I am under no illusion about some of the things that it has done and still does, such as the involvement of child soldiers, about which we have heard. I have met people and I know members of the Tamil community in the UK who are here as refugees because of the LTTE. There are two sides to the story.

Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend share the frustration of many of my constituents that there seems to be a belief that there is an equivalence between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE? People talk about two sides of the argument. One is the state. The other is a small group of people in the north and east of the island. There is no equivalence. The two are not analogous.

Neil Gerrard: That is an important point, which I had intended to deal with. Let me develop it now, as it has been raised. There is talk of being even-handed and looking at both sides of the question, but we are dealing on one side with a Government who have signed up to international conventionsin relation to human rights, for example. One should expect standards from a Government which one does not necessarily expect from a guerrilla organisation or an organisation described as a terrorist organisation.
	It is no excuse for a Government to point to the activities of the LTTE and say, Well, if the LTTE behaves like this, we have to take action. It is no excuse at all for a Government to be involved in breaches of human rights and point to the activities of the LTTE. Governments sign up to international conventions about how they will behave, and over the years there has been significant evidence that the Sri Lankan Government have not always lived up to the conventions to which they are signed up.

Edward Davey: On that important point, speakers have mentioned the analogy with Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, in almost all respects, the British state did not behave against the international conventions. If we press on the Sri Lankan communities the Northern Ireland parallel, surely that should speak volumes to the Sri Lankan Government. If they behaved as the British Government behaved, abiding by the rules, they would be more likely to succeed.

Neil Gerrard: That message is right. If we look back at the history of Northern Ireland over the years, we could find some examples where we did not behave according to conventions, but it did not do us any good when that happened. That is the message that must be put across.
	I have been labelled an LTTE supporter in the past, and been told that I was supporting terrorists. I am well aware of things that the organisation has done of which I do not approve. I am convinced, as I am sure are other hon. Members, that money is being raised in this country which goes to the LTTE. Whether or not the story about the petrol stations is true, I am sure that I am not the only person who has heard the stories of taxing, whereby people are more or less required to contribute money. That happens, and let us not be under any illusion or pretend that it does not. The bottom line, however, is that there will be no settlement and solution unless the LTTE is involved in developing them and in the negotiations. The Tamil politicians in Sri Lanka, and the Members of Parliament who are members of the Tamil National Alliance, which I know is sometimes described as an LTTE proxy, but comprises elected Members of Parliament, will say exactly thatthat the LTTE is the body that represents the view of the majority of Tamils.
	There has been long-standing evidence of the disregard for human rights in Sri Lanka to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) drew attention, and the failure to live up to basic human rights standards. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) quoted, has made the same point. The commission that has been established to look into extra-judicial killings and disappearances is welcome, but concerns have been expressed that there are shortcomings in the national legal system that could hamper the commission's effectiveness. Previous commissions have made recommendations, but they have not been put into effect. The commission should be looking not only at individual responsibilities for acts that may be regarded as crimes, but at the broader patterns and the context in which such acts occur. It is no good merely looking at the individual case if nothing then happens to change the overall context.
	The overall context at the moment is extremely worrying. There is no question but that there has been very serious deterioration in the situation over the past year or so. Relief organisations are expressing concern, and the Red Cross has recently told us that there are up to 120,000 displaced civilians in the Batticaloa district. Just in the past week or two, more than 40,000 people have fled their homes in that district. We have heard the claims about restrictions on humanitarian provision, as the A9 road has been closed, which is preventing essential medicines and humanitarian aid from getting through. Human Rights Watch and others have expressed concern that the Sri Lankan authorities are using threats and intimidation to compel civilians who fled recent fighting to return home when it is far from safe for them to do so. Those are not the actions that one would expect from a Government; one would not expect anybody to be forced to return home when they feel it is unsafe to do so.
	As to what can be done, I understand perfectly well that we as a Government are not in a position to dictate solutions to the Governments of any other countries. The solution will be achieved in the end through negotiation and through the people of that country, the LTTE and its Government. I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and the Minister had to say about the initiatives that are being taken, in which we can export experience. It is also perfectly legitimate for us to express our opinions on the initiatives that are being suggested. I have read the recent reports about the devolution proposals unveiled by the Sri Lanka Freedom party. It seemed to me that the proposals were highly unlikely to lead to a solution. In fact, they will probably be regarded as a step backward, as they implied devolution of power at a very local level, rather than any significant devolution of power that would give any real autonomy to a region or province. The proposals seem a step backward in respect of some of the suggestions made a few years ago, and it would not be helpful to the peace process if they were pursued. It is not for me to say what the detail of any solution should be, but it will not last if it does not give a significant degree of autonomy to the north and east provincesthe parts of the country with very significant Tamil populations.
	We must carry on with the initiatives that the Minister talked about in his opening remarks. We must offer our experience and support, but send a clear and consistent message to both sidesthe Government and the LTTEthat there is not a military solution to this problem. I am worried about the attitude of the Sri Lankan military, who seem to think that they are on the way to crushing the LTTE and that just another push will do it. If that is their mindset, I am afraid that things will get far worse than they are now. That is the important message that we have to send.

Edward Davey: I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said. It is absolutely crucial that we send a message from this House that we are jointly resolved on the need to put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, particularly as regards their growing view that there could be a military solution to this problem. I hope that Members on both sides of the House reject that idea.
	Sri Lanka has often appeared to me to be the forgotten tragedy in the world. We hear a great deal about theatres of war such as Darfur and Zimbabweof course, they are appallingbut Sri Lanka has been going on, like a running sore, for many years. It has not received the attention that it deserves from this Housethat is why I welcome this debate, which has been partly stimulated by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), and congratulate the Government on holding it. This subject has also been forgotten by the British media, and I hope that the BBC and Fleet street will give it the coverage that it deserves.
	Like other Members, I come to this debate as a constituency MP having listened to my Tamil constituents' concerns over many years. In engaging with them, we have the wonderful experience of learning about the Tamil culture and seeing how Tamils contribute so positively to British society. One of the highlights of my year is going to Kingston's institute of tamil culture and seeing the children play their instruments, dance, sing and tell jokes in TamilI get them translated for me. Sometimes it goes on for rather a long time, but it is always very enjoyable. When we engage with them properly and listens to their concerns, we hear stories of tragedies. When I have spoken to them at political meetings, I have always taken the view that we should approach this on a human rights basis, with equality across the communities. Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I have been accused of being an LTTE sympathiser, but I reject that utterly. I have always tried to take a balanced approach. The idea that in this House and in this country we can suggest a solution that we can somehow impose on people is clearly nonsense.
	When we talk to Tamil constituents and say that we want to take a balanced, human rights approach, we cannot help but feel their anger, frustration and pain, because they have families who have been killed, they have seen killings themselves, and they look at communities of theirs that have been devastated by the violence. It is impossible, as a constituency MP, not to listen to those stories, and not to share their concern and anger.

Susan Kramer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the deep frustrations in the Tamil community, rightly or wronglyit may be an unfair statementis the feeling that because of the war on terror the British Government and other European Governments do not have the same energy and will to resolve their problem because, first, they have higher priorities, and secondly, they are very hesitant about being associated with conversations with anyone who carries the label terrorist anywhere near their name?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes the point clearly. To be fair to the Government, and although I heard only the second half of the Minister's speech, for which I apologise again, I was pleased to hear about the initiatives that he and his colleagues are taking. I am sure that they have the support of hon. Members of all parties. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), I urge him to go further and not be put off by the label terrorists, which can pollute a proper debate about the policy towards a country.
	Most of the Tamils to whom I speak do not support the LTTE. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, many of them are fleeing violence that the LTTE perpetrated against them, their families and communities. The Tamil community is, of course, varied. Let us be clear: some people support the LTTE, often reluctantly, because they feel that it is the only organisation that can voice their concerns and represent the Tamil community. Some believe that they have no alternative. Let us be honest and say that that is partly because the LTTE has stamped out some of the alternative Tamil political organisations, again with acts of terror. The LTTE has therefore almost created a monopoly. Nevertheless, for many people, it represents a true voice of the Tamil community's demands. Those voices should be listened to and their anger heard.
	One must apply proper standards to the Sri Lankan Government. I have read UN report after UN report, Amnesty International report after Amnesty International report, as well as reports from Human Rights Watch and the International Bar Association, which show that the Sri Lankan Government are not fulfilling the requirements of civil rights and due process or their legal responsibilities. The emergency regulations allow for the most incredible abuses of civil and human rights, primarily against the Tamil population. We must bear that in mind in the debate.
	I want to make four quick points. First, let us consider the suffering of the civilian population in the east and north. People have commented on the A9 and its closure by the Sri Lankan Government. That is critical. The lack of food and medical supplies, especially in the Jaffna peninsula, causes great hardship, and I cannot understand why the Sri Lankan Government continue to set their face against international pressure. I am told that that was a sticking point at the Geneva peace talks, and that the Sri Lankan Government walked away from them last autumn because of the demand to reopen the road. To me that was a legitimate demand from the Tamil side, and I hope that it will be realised. I refer hon. Members to early-day motion 955 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, in which we press for the A9 to be reopened for humanitarian reasons.
	My second point is directed at the Sri Lankan authorities. Like my hon. Friends the Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Richmond Park, I have been challenged when I have raised such issues; I have also seen colleagues challenged. Councillor Yogan Yoganathan on Kingston council, a former mayor of the royal borough, has been labelled an LTTE sympathiser and supporter simply because, like hon. Members, he wanted to speak out about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. I believe that the Sri Lankan authorities, possibly through their representatives in this country, are trying to prevent people from speaking outto prevent freedom of speech. We must convey a message that we will debate such issues in this country, that that is our democratic right, and that the Sri Lankan authorities should accept it and not try to intimidate people who speak out by trying to label them LTTE sympathisers or terrorists. I hope that the Government will make the point that that is unacceptable in their discussions with Sri Lankan representatives in this country. I intend to do that when I meet the Sri Lankan high commissioner, as I shall shortly.
	My third point relates to the Home Office, to which one or two other hon. Members have referred. Let me tell hon. Members a story from one of my advice surgeries a few months ago. I met a gentleman who was claiming asylumfor the second time, as he had failed the first time. He had been returned, re-arrested, detained and tortured again. I learned from talking to his lawyer that his case was not an isolated one. This country has been sending back as failed asylum seekers a number of people who went through that experience. Some managed to escape again and tried to claim asylum again; others have disappeared; still others have been killed.
	I ask Ministers on the Treasury Bench tonight to take the message back to the Home Office to be particularly careful when considering asylum claims from Sri Lankan citizens. These stories are simply unacceptable and we must ensure that bona fide claims for asylum are considered with real care, particularly given the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that merely the act of seeking asylum on the part of many people from the Tamil community in Sri Lanka would render them liable to all kinds of dangers if they were forcibly returned? In that sense, would it not be better not to return people forcibly to Sri Lanka?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This is a cleft stick for the Government. False claims are false claims, but I have seen too many cases where bona fide claims for asylum have been rejected. Despite making the strongest possible representations, people have been returned, sometimes never to be heard of again.
	My final point relates to the ban. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) rightly suggested that it was counter-productive. It may well be. I hope that the Minister can develop the response that his colleague gave me when I asked about the possibility of a process for reviewing the ban. Can the Government be a little clearer about how they could involve Members in looking at the issue again? They should do so, for the following reason.
	When the statutory instrument was originally passed proscribing the LTTE, it was one of more than 20 organisations named in it. There was no single debate about the LTTE, just one debate on the whole statutory instrument. We did not have 20-odd separate votes after 20-odd separate debatesjust one. Of course those regulations included a number of organisations that really needed to be proscribed, as the whole House agreed, but I believe that there is a debatea legitimate debateabout whether the LTTE should be proscribed, and it ought to be heard. The process that proscribed the LTTE in the first place was inadequate. That, in itself, is an argument in favour of a review at the very least.

Simon Hughes: Just so that my hon. Friend is clear, I am sure he remembers that that was a point that we made at the time, and beforehand; it is not a point that we have thought up later. We said then that if a step as serious as banning organisations is to be taken, there must be a process in this place to look into the evidence for each case separately, one by one. We have argued that consistently, and I hope that the Government have at last come to understand it.

Edward Davey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
	Sri Lanka has the potential to be one of the powerhouses of Asia, and the world. Just three decades ago, it was held up as a model society. Professor Amartya Sen used to write in glowing terms that here wasdare I say it?a socialist economy and society that had managed to reduce infant mortality, improve literacy and achieve many other key indicators of human progress. Sri Lanka had done a tremendous job. However, the strife that we have seen over the past 30 years has, unfortunately, seen the society go backwards and social progress reversed.
	I am sure that those achievements can be regainedbut what it will take to do that is peace. It will take Governments such as ours and the European Union putting even more pressure than they have hitherto on both parts of the island to come together. The biggest aid package that we could ever give to the island would be to help it to promote peace. It would no longer need our support or aidit is more than capable of becoming prosperous by itself, without a pound of aidif we helped it to restore peace. I am delighted to see that a Minister from the Department for International Development is to respond to the debate, and I hope that his Department, working with the Foreign Office, can give Sri Lanka that aid.
	When the tsunami occurred, I hoped that it would help to stimulate peace and reconciliation, because the response to it was building on the ceasefire agreement that had been working, particularly under Prime Minister Wickramasinghe. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Some of the negative voices from the old Kumaratunga regime, and subsequently from the Rajapakse regime, had their way, and we have seen a deterioration in the situation ever since.
	When we were considering how individual MPs and communities in this country could help, one project that I was delighted to support was the fish and ships scheme. Many fishermen had lost their boats, and their livelihoods, as a result of the tsunami, but some British people living in Sri Lanka got together with the fishermen and the communities and said, If we supply you with ships and get you contracts with British supermarkets for your fish, that will help to revive your economy. And that has happened.
	If we help people in such ways, Sri Lanka can be a wonderful place again. But there is a precondition: peace. Let us not wait another five or 10 years before the House again debates this issue and puts pressure on the Government to do more. Let us keep coming back to the subject again and again, because the cause of peace in Sri Lanka deserves our attention, and deserves to be one of the key issues to which we pay attention.

Mike Gapes: First, I should like to apologise for not being here for the opening speeches. This debate started earlier than expected, and I was chairing a Select Committee evidence session on Iran.
	I am speaking in two capacities: as the MP representing a constituency with a large Sri Lankan Tamil community and as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am in an unfortunate position, in that the Committee is publishing a report on south Asia on Friday, but it is embargoed so I cannot quote from it [ Interruption. ] Yes, I am holding it in my hand. I can at least refer to the evidence. The report examines the whole regional context, but we have of course touched on the serious situation in Sri Lanka.
	Before I refer to the report, however, I should like to place on the record the fact that I agree with most of the contributions that I have heard today, and certainly with what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said about the cultural contribution of the Tamil community. We have a chariot festival in Ilford every year, and the community contains temples and prosperous businesses. The area of my constituency around Ley street has become a centre of the Tamil community, enriching and enlivening the cultural life of the borough of Redbridge.
	Given the contribution that most Tamil people in the UK make, it is tragic that many of them are suffering grievously because of what is happening to their relatives and friends in Sri Lanka. A letter was faxed to me two days ago in which one of my constituents says:
	I am deeply grieved at the deplorable state of affairs at the moment, especially the disappearance of innocent civilians. A pathetic state of affairs, indeed, for an agreement which once looked so promising, but five years since it came into effect, the Ceasefire Agreement is almost defunct.
	I could go on. Other Members have reported many similar things. The sad thing is that the hope for the co-operation that might have resulted following the terrible tsunami, and the possibility of building on the ceasefire agreement have clearly gone backwards. In the past few months, we have all no doubt received from our constituents pictures of the consequences of the air raids and the bombing of civilian areas, and of people who have died in many parts of Sri Lanka. At the same time, terrorist actions and criminal activities are going on, and the population in many areas is suffering grievously as a result.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am not asking my hon. Friend to reveal anything in the report due out on Friday, but does he agree that it is important to give all the support that we can to the International Committee of the Red Cross in trying to trace some of the missing people? Such anguish is caused to families here whose loved ones have disappeared and are possibly dead but who receive no news because of either the collapse of communications in Sri Lanka or the refusal to divulge information. International agencies are therefore required to help out.

Mike Gapes: I agree. We also need to support all the international institutions, the UN processes that have been mentioned, the attempts made by individual Governments, and the attempt of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I had the great pleasure of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary during the Northern Ireland peace negotiations when the Labour Government were first elected. Nobody could be better qualified to try to assist the process in Sri Lanka, but I wish him luck because the complexities of the politics in Sri Lanka are even worse than those in Northern Ireland. Therefore, no easy solution can be reached.
	The violence has had an enormous economic impact, as has been mentioned. Sri Lanka's growth and economic development has been held back, and its once successful tourist industry has been harmedit would be harmed even more if the BBC were to give some coverage to the appalling situation in Sri Lanka. Our media do not give the conflict in Sri Lanka the coverage that some other conflicts receive. Some of my constituents who demonstrated outside the House of Commons a few months ago were enraged that the hundreds of people complaining about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka received no coverage whatever. It is interesting to ask why. The reason might be the malign role of the LTTE and the image that it gives the community. I am an advocate not of the LTTE, but of my constituents and those who have suffered from the terrible things going on in their country.
	Reference has been made to the number of people in refugee camps, the internally displaced people and the refugees who have gone all over the world in the Tamil diaspora. Human rights abuses have been committed on both sides. Many people in Sri Lanka today have suffered as a result of the recruitment of children into terrorist organisations. From evidence given by Human Rights Watch to our Committee and information from other sources, it has become clear that the Karuna faction, which was previously with the LTTE and has gone across to fight on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government, has been recruiting children for its forces and carrying out terrible crimes. The LTTE has also recruited children, and the tactic has been used in the conflict for many years. That is completely against all the international norms and conventions, and we need to denounce that loudly and press for the practice to end.
	As has been mentioned, the Norwegians have tried hard to get a political solution over the years. But the situation today requires renewed international efforts. Along with the efforts of our Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, I hope that the Government of India will use whatever influence they have. We must bear in mind the sensitivities, especially given that a Prime Minister of India was assassinated as a result of involvement in the Sri Lankan conflict. Politicians in India might therefore be a bit wary of getting too involved. Nevertheless, if India aspires to be a regional power and player, and certainly if it aspires to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it has a role to play in thinking more about how it might assist in achieving a solution to the conflict on the island to its south.

Simon Hughes: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is speaking, given that he chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think that I am right in saying that Sri Lanka does not feature in the report that his Committee has just produced, which deals with human rights matters around the world and covers what happened last year. Will he take the issues we have raised back to the Committee, and ensure that Sri Lanka is raised in next year's report?

Mike Gapes: Our human rights report did not refer to every country in the world. We tried to highlight a few instances in which we thought the Government's report was inadequate or required further comment. As we were conducting an inquiry on south Asia and would be publishing our report at about the same time, we felt that duplication was unnecessary. However, when our report is published on Friday it will contain comments about human rights in Sri Lanka.
	I am sure that my Committee colleagues will consider what we do in future human rights reports, but I cannot commit my Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a democratic Committee whose 14 members make collective decisions. I hope we will examine the situation in Sri Lanka in the round in the coming year.
	I believe that this conflict deserves much greater attention. I believe that there is a role for our Government and for Parliament in trying to facilitate dialogue and a political solution, but I also believe that tactics such as blowing up buses, assassinating political leaders and bombing villages cannot be excused, justified or apologised for, whoever employs them. I therefore believe that members of the various communitiesthe diaspora, and those in Sri Lankawho are concerned about these issues must try to find the best way of returning to a political solution.
	As other Members have said, we must get back to politics. Only politics, dialogue and negotiation will provide a solution. The slow, difficult processes in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaenand many other Members in all parts of the Houseplayed a part for the many years that it took to secure agreement in Northern Ireland will be needed again in Sri Lanka. We must all maintain international support for that approach, just as we received support from the United States, the European Union and the international community.

Andrew Love: I congratulate the Government on making time for the debate. The fact is that Parliament has been rather remiss when it comes to Sri Lanka, especially in view of the number of people who have died and the fact that the conflict has been ongoing since 1983.
	I pay tributeas we all seem to be doingto my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who will reply to the debate. Both played a prominent role in Sri Lankan affairs before they became Ministers, andas has already been mentionedboth their constituencies contain significant Tamil communities.
	I want to make a number of points in the limited time available to me. The first concerns the drift back to war that has been going on for some time. Almost immediately after the ceasefire agreement in 2002, despite six rounds of talks that seemed to be very positivethe LTTE discussed prisoner exchanges and was going to drop the idea of an independent stateby 2003 the LTTE had pulled out, suggesting that it had been sidelined. That resulted in a serious loss of momentum. It was nearly four years before the next major effort was made to bring the two communities together, and although they met in February 2006 and agreed to meet again in April, that subsequent meeting never took place. I pay tribute to Norway for its unsuccessful attempt to bring the two communities together in Oslo in June that year.
	There are many reasons for the failure of those efforts, but I shall cite three that I consider particularly important. In October 2003, there was an interim self-governing agreement. Unfortunately, that split the Sinhalese community, and in subsequent parliamentary elections the United National party, which was more sympathetic than some others to finding agreement, was defeated. A consequence of that defeat was that the LTTE and the Tamil community began to wonder about the limitations of the peace process in delivering genuine change for them.
	Secondly, 35,000 people were killed as a result of the tsunami and Members know from debates in this House that there was no direct aid to Tamil areas; it had to be filtered through the Government. There was an agreement between the Government and the LTTE: the post-tsunami operational management system or PTOMS. However, that was challenged in the supreme court, and consequently the aid was slow in getting through and the Tamil community began to wonder whether its suffering caused by the tsunami was being recognised.
	The third reason was the assassination of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgamar. Although it is widely assumed that that was carried out by the LTTE, no one has claimed responsibility. That has further deepened the hostility between the communities.
	The drift into war became a slide after April 2006. The new Government of the Sri Lanka Freedom party came under pressure from the more nationalist smaller parties to take a tougher response to the negotiating process. The LTTE abandoned any prospect that peace would be delivered, and returned to the low intensity insurgency of some years before. There was also the defection of the Karuna faction, which felt that it was not being listened to within the LTTE, and the belief of many in the military and the Sri Lankan Government that they could exploit that split. The consequence of all of that is that some believe that there can be a military solution. We should make it clearevery Member who has spoken has done sothat there is no military solution. That is not only because the LTTE remains much stronger than many people think, especially in the north of the island, but because, as we have seen in recent weeks and months, it still has the ability to disrupt Sri Lanka and to fight back when necessary. Because we should not underestimate the LTTE, it is crucial that the international community starts to bring the two communities together.
	We have talked a lot about Norway and some Members have been critical, but Norway cannot succeed alone. It needs the help of the international community. That was clear from what happened to the Sri Lanka monitoring mission. The LTTE said that it had to get out of its areas, and it had to retreat back to Colombo and remove monitors who were from European Union countries. The international community has a role to play, and it must do more.

David Burrowes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Love: I apologise, but I shall not take interventions as I only have two minutes.
	In recent months countries and organisations such as Canada, the European Union and the United States have taken tougher action in respect of the LTTE; Canada, for example, has joined others in proscribing it. I do not want to get into the arguments for and against taking such action, but we should clearly state that we cannot defeat it militarily and neither can we do so by banishing it from the political system. It has to be possible to bring it in. There has to be a political solution to the problem and that must include the Tamil communitya solution cannot be achieved without it. That requires critical and sustained international engagement. My major plea is that the British Government must call on the international community to do more. Some time ago, the international donors talked about putting pressure on in terms of international donations. Many countries give debt relief to Sri Lanka. Are we asking whether that is getting through to all the people in Sri Lanka to ease all of its problems? We need answers to such questions.
	I wanted to go into greater detail than time allows on the human rights situation, which is extremely bleak. There is an intensification of the dirty war that mainly impacts on civilians in the north and east of the country. Child recruitment continues on both sides, and there have been more than 700 abductions and disappearances in recent months. Emergency regulations have effectively been turned into prevention of terrorism legislation that contains sweeping powers and is not accountable to the political process. Of course, the LTTE has gone further in rejecting the possibility that the peace process can deliver for it.
	So the reality is that the situation has not been bleaker than this for many years. The reality is also that only the international community can make a real difference in bringing the two sides together. I make the plea that I am sure everyone else is making. Although the British Government may not play the main role, in many ways they have a unique role because of our membership of the Security Council, our historical role in Sri Lanka and our membership of the EU. All those factors can be brought to bear to ensure that we do the most important thing: bring the two sides together, reintroduce the ceasefire agreement and get the political process under way.

Gareth Thomas: This has been a serious and considered debate that has reflected the Government's profound concern at the situation facing the people of Sri Lanka. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East began the debate by setting out a range of steps that we have taken. He deliberately chose to initiate this debate precisely to allow Members to raise the issues that we know many constituents are concerned about. He confirmed not only that he has visited Sri Lanka, but that he is due to do so again.
	My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who spoke for the Opposition. In a wide-ranging speech, he made a series of points and asked a number of questions, not the least of which concerned the role of India and the potential of British discussions with the Indian Government regarding the situation in Sri Lanka. I can confirm that such discussions are ongoing, and that my hon. Friend is due to visit India shortly to continue them in person. I will come to the other questions that the hon. Gentleman asked in due course.
	We were then treated to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who brought his considerable experience of Northern Ireland matters to this debate. I welcome the fact that he has visited Sri Lanka, and that his interest continues and he is willing to travel again to that country to share the benefit of and reflect on his experience. His forthcoming visit, timed as it will be to coincide with the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, who will bring the Government's perspective to the situation in Sri Lanka, will be particularly important. My right hon. Friend made a particularly important point about the Northern Ireland process. The lessons learned from Northern Ireland have a particular read-across to the situation in Sri Lanka. He referred to the importance of parity of esteem, as he put it: the need to develop mutual respect across the divides that haunt Sri Lanka.
	My right hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who touched on the concerns of many of his constituents and made a series of wide-ranging points that I will come to in due course. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), who, among the various points that he made, was the first Member to highlight the wide-ranging contribution of Sri Lankans to the cultural and economic life of our country, and to many of our constituencies, towns and cities.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) made an especially important point about the need for courage from the leaders of the key groupings in Sri Lanka to offer leadership towards a peace process, given the scale of the conflict and the number of lives that have been lost. It is important that that leadership is offered.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) brought his considerable interest and involvement to the debate, and highlighted the need to ensure that the aid that we offer to Sri Lanka is well targeted. I will say more about that point later.
	The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) gave justified recognition to the considerable contribution of the Norwegian Government. I pay particular tribute to the Norwegian Minister, Erik Solheim, who has been diligent about maintaining his country's support for the peace process in Sri Lanka in a difficult period. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the considerable humanitarian needs in the country, and I shall describe how my Department is trying to mitigate the scale of that need.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) also described the considerable role of the Sri Lankan community in her constituency and rightly dwelt on the scale of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka at present.
	The hon. Members for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) also made heart-felt points about the opportunity that the tsunami appeared to pose for bringing the sides together. I visited Sri Lanka most recently in June 2005, having also travelled to Aceh in Indonesia, where the tsunami was indeed a catalyst for bringing all sides together. However, by June 2005, it was beginning to become clear that the moment had passed when the force and devastation of the tsunami could have offered a route back into the peace process in Sri Lanka. The conflict was already beginning to return to the state it was in before 2002.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) rightly highlighted the concerns in his constituency and across the UK about the level of human rights abuse in Sri Lanka. In acknowledging the importance of the presidential commission that has been established to look into the issue, he rightly highlighted the need to go further and to ensure that the recommendations of the commission are implemented and deliver tangible improvements in the human rights situation in that country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) brought to our debate his considerable experience as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We look forward with interest to the publication of his Committee's report on Friday. He made the point that more media attention could justifiably be paid to the conflict in Sri Lanka. Perhaps the publication of the Committee's report will provide an opportunity for that greater media engagement.
	In addition, some extremely astute and important interventions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes).
	I know that concern about what is happening in Sri Lanka goes beyond those hon. Members who have been able to attend today's debate. I have received representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Claire Ward), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), for Brent, South (Ms Butler), and for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). I also know that this debate will be noted widely across the UK by people in the Sri Lankan Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim communities. I know from my own constituency of the profound concern about the situation in Sri Lanka.
	I first had the privilege of visiting the country in October 2002, at a time of great hope in the peace process, when people were very optimistic about what was happening. I travelled to Jaffna, which must be one of the most beautifully sited cities in the world, in the company of a Tamil friend from my constituency, and I saw his tears at the scale of the devastation in the city where he grew up and was educated. Since then, and like many other hon. Members, I have heard about the frustration that many people from our Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese communities feel about the situation in Sri Lanka. That frustration has to do with the prospects for peace, the worsening humanitarian situation and the impact that the conflict is having on development, human rights and on the recovery from the tsunami.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister set out, the desire for peace and progress has to come from inside Sri Lanka itself. Our Prime Minister has made clear to President Rajapakse our willingness to help, and I hope that the House will agree that my hon. Friend's visits to the country, the discussions held by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers with visiting Ministers from Sri Lanka, and the engagement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen show the extent of our commitment to help the people of Sri Lanka move forward. However, I repeat that the peace process must begin in Sri Lanka itself.
	All Governments, and especially democratically elected Governments, have the responsibility for defending their countries against terrorism. The Sri Lankan Government are no exception, although they also face the considerable challenge of delivering a peace settlement that will meet the aspirations of all Sri Lanka's different groups.
	The last time that the House had the opportunity to reflect on the situation in Sri Lanka as we have done today was in the aftermath of the tsunami. At the time, there was considerable concern about the scale of the displacement and loss of life that had taken place. In today's debate, we have heard about the continued concern in the period since the tsunami, so I will set out in some detail what my Department and the Government more generally have been able to do in response.

Simon Hughes: Have the Sri Lankan Government given any indication that they understand what the Labour Government, to their credit, have understood in respect of Britainthat people can be kept happy only if they are given power and self-government? Has there been any recognition of that in communications from the Sri Lankan Government since Labour has been in office?

Gareth Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, in a little while I shall deal with matters such as the fact that the President has set up all-party talks about a possible settlement offer.
	I was talking about the effects of the tsunami. By the beginning of 2006, almost all the children in the areas affected were attending school. Not surprisingly, the situation has deteriorated since then, and school attendance in the north and east is now severely affected by the security situation.
	Almost all families that were still in our camps now have access to much sturdier transitional shelter. More than 70 per cent. of families are back in their own homes, and more than 75 per cent. of people have regained their livelihoods. Moreover, progress is being made with the building of improved education and health facilities. We had anticipated that this year major infrastructure programmes would forge ahead and that the pace of progress in building permanent housing would pick up. However, Members will not be surprised to learn that the resurgence of the conflict has had serious consequences for the reconstruction effort and for development more generally, particularly in the north and east of the country.
	We committed aid of about 7 million immediately after the tsunami struck. About 500,000 is outstanding. We set that money aside to try to help to develop the capacity of the north-east provincial council to lead the recovery process, but the money is unspent because of the impact of renewed conflict. Other money we gave is being well spent, as I saw on my visit to the Ampara district in June 2005. I visited a Tamil rehabilitation organisation camp where money we gave the Adventist development and relief agency was helping to provide water tanks and carriers for some of the 5,000 displaced families in the district.
	We contributed about 250,000 to World Vision UK to help fund the distribution of food and basic shelter materials to more than 120,000 people in Sri Lanka. We gave aid to help the Save the Children Fund in the distribution of food, shelter, household items and water purification material to about 100,000 families across Sri Lanka, including in the north and east. We also helped to fund the UN operation in Sri Lanka. The UN led the international response to assist the Government of Sri Lanka and we helped to fund its capacity to do so.
	Whatever the form of the final settlement to the ethnic conflict that is scarring Sri Lanka, it must emerge through inclusive negotiations between representatives of the different communities, as Members have said. That will mean making difficult compromises, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out. Some people in Sri Lanka may prefer not to make those compromises, believing that a military solution is a better option. Bluntly, as has been said in all the contributions, a military solution is not the better option. Twenty-four years of fighting in Sri Lanka have shown that neither side is capable of a total military victory. Even if a military solution were possible, a settlement imposed following a military victory would be a source of considerable resentment and future conflict; it would not have the makings of a genuinely sustainable peace.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked about our conversations with the Sri Lankan Government. The all-party committee initiated by President Rajapakse provides an opportunity to reach a consensus, especially among southern politicians, on what devolution might look like in the Sri Lankan context. We welcome that initiative and hope that the final proposal for devolution will be ambitious in its efforts to accommodate the aspirations of all Sri Lankans.

Andrew Love: There are constant rumours that if consensus is reached but negotiations do not take place the Sri Lankan Government will go ahead without agreement. What would be our Government's reaction in that case?

Gareth Thomas: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if at this stage I do not speculate on an unknown outcome. As I have said, a solution in Sri Lanka will have to be reached through negotiation and compromise, and I hope that that message is well understood.
	Many Members touched on the humanitarian situation, reflecting on the impact of the conflict on the civilian population. Much of the recent fighting has occurred in heavily populated areas of the east. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced over the past year. Recent reporting by UN agencies suggests that malnutrition remains a real concern for many living in internally displaced person camps. Those camps are not the places of refuge that they should be from the killings and political abductions that are scarring Sri Lanka.
	In the north, the situation in Jaffna is particularly grim. It is a city of 600,000 people and it remains cut off from the rest of the country. We agree with the co-chairs of the peace processthe EU, Norway, Japan and the United Statesthat there should be
	immediate, permanent and unconditional opening of the sea and road routes
	the A9 has been referred to
	for humanitarian convoys of essential supplies.
	As the intensity of the fighting has increased, the space for humanitarian agencies to operate in has become much more constricted. Both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have a responsibility to ensure that humanitarian agencies are able to get full access to civilians in need of support. Crucially, they should respect the neutrality of humanitarian agencies. Seeing humanitarian agencies as legitimate targets for vilification because they support peace may jeopardise the security of their staff.
	According to figures compiled by Reuters, Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places in the world for humanitarian workers to operate. In 2006, 23 were killed, 17 of them in a terrible murder near Trincomalee in August. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous non-governmental organisations for the selfless work that they do in Sri Lanka.

Edward Davey: I join the tribute that the Minister has paid to United Nations agencies that are working on the island. He talked about the need to open land routes, in particular, in an area that is battered by conflict. Is not one possible solution to ask the United Nations Security Council whether there could be a peacekeeping force just for that route, to keep it open for humanitarian aid? Is that one possible way forward?

Gareth Thomas: I will come later to the question of the UN and the discussions that we have been having through it. We have made it clear that access is necessary by road and sea. I take this opportunity again to urge the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka to recognise that they have a responsibility to facilitate access for humanitarian and development agencies. That is a responsibility on the Government of Sri Lanka, but it is also one that the LTTE must recognise.
	I touched on what we as a Government have been able to do to respond to the humanitarian needs. In September last year, we contributed $1 million to the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross for their response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sri Lanka. An assessment mission has recently returned again from Sri Lanka and we will assess the recommendations in its summary report in the next few weeks with a view to considering what else we can do to help mitigate the impact.
	Much has been said about human rights. As a number of hon. Members have said, in areas under LTTE control, there is no tolerance of dissent or of freedom of expression. The LTTE needs to develop its role as a credible partner for peace. It cannot continue to persecute Tamils just because they have opposing views. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) made clear in one of his interventions early on, there have been credible reports that members of the Government security forces have been involved in extra-judicial killings and there have been repeated allegations that some civilians detained during large anti-terrorist operations have disappeared. I know of concerns from my own constituency case load, as well. It appears that anti-LTTE paramilitary groups have also been engaged in violence and intimidation. Despite promising to do so, the Government of Sri Lanka have not succeeded in preventing those armed groups from operating in Government-controlled areas. There are allegations of collusion by the security forces.
	The four leading international players in the peace processthe co-chairshave made it clear that they believe that both parties have failed to deliver on their responsibilities in that respect, including on the commitments made at the Geneva meeting in 2006. We share that view and the concern that has been raised in the House about the serious restrictions that have been put on freedom of expression, with journalists and newspaper distribution agents being intimidated and, in some cases, killed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I asked the hon. Gentleman several questions during my speech, notably whether the UK Government were taking any new initiatives to solve the peace process, especially involving the United Nations. Will he say something about that before he concludes?

Gareth Thomas: I will indeed. However, first let me highlight the fact that the Foreign Minister and two other democratically elected Members of Parliament have been killed in the past two years. Many ordinary people have been reported as disappeared or simply killed.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold asked me about the UN, as did the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Last year, Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, felt that the unfolding human rights situation was so serious that she called on the international community to continue to monitor it. She said that the events were not just ceasefire violations, but grave breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law. That is why we continue to seek a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council. We want discussions to take place there so that we can help to build a framework for peace and increase confidence on all sides in Sri Lanka.
	As I indicated, we welcome and support the establishment of the international independent group of eminent persons, which will monitor domestic investigations into human rights abuses. However, the group, on its own, is not enough. The investigations must be rigorous and fast. They must help to ensure that more of the perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice.
	I am sure that the House will agree that one of the most abhorrent human rights abuses is the continued recruitment of children to fight. Both the LTTE and the Karuna faction have given undertakings that they will stop the practice, but evidence, including that from UNICEF, suggests that both organisations continue to force children to fight.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold asked whether the Sri Lanka monitoring mission could be strengthened. We agree that it has done an excellent job in often difficult circumstances. I hope that the LTTE will once again co-operate with the mission and allow monitors from EU member states to return.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton asked about debt relief and the UK's decision to pay thus far only half the outstanding debt relief tranche for 2006. We believe that that sent a clear message to the Sri Lankan Government about our concerns. The outstanding payment will be made only when consultations have concluded with the Sri Lankan Government. Those consultations will, in particular, involve discussions about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. When the high commissioner met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister last week, they discussed debt relief and our concerns about human rights. The high commissioner urged the Sri Lankan Government to respond to and address our concerns. Further debt relief payments cannot be made until that happens.
	Many hon. Members asked what else the Government could do in addition to the considerable efforts that we are already making. Our top political and developmental priority in Sri Lanka is supporting peace building. The Department works closely with our colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence and with those whom support the Prime Minister. We combine our operations in the country, and we are using funds from the global conflict prevention pool to support a series of programmes that will help to bring the sides together, slowly to try to create the conditions for a sustainable peace.
	Sri Lanka is a country of huge but unfulfilled potential. We want a peaceful solution to the conflict. That solution must be one with which all the people and communities in Sri Lanka feel comfortable. It must enable the society to become more prosperous and healthier. We will continue to be engaged in the search for peace in Sri Lanka.

Dave Watts: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAFT HUMAN TISSUE AND EMBRYOS BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 26th April, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 25th July 2007.
	 Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of nine Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill.
	That the Committee shall have power
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
	That Mr David Burrowes, Ms Katy Clark, Dr Ian Gibson, Robert Key, Chris Mole, Dr Doug Naysmith, Geraldine Smith, Ms Dari Taylor and Mr Phil Willis be members of the Committee. [Mr. Watts.]

LENDING REGULATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Watts.]

Siobhain McDonagh: May I start by saying that, unusually, I did not want to call for this debate, but Barclays bank has given me no choice? That is the same Barclays bank that, only weeks ago, announced record profits of 7 billion. It is the same Barclays bank that paid one of its executives 22 million last year alone. We all know that Barclays likes to make a killing in the City, and we congratulate it on its success, but hand-in-hand with success goes the corporate responsibility to be reasonable to customers, particularly the most vulnerable customers. I have discovered that there is a sinister side to Barclays, and I want to share it with Members this evening.
	Like many Members, I write tens of thousands of letters a year on behalf of my constituentsthere are thousands and thousands of names on my casework systembut I do not ask for Adjournment debates on every case that comes along. I would only do so in extreme cases when every other effort has failed. This is such an occasion. My constituent, Mr. Aranda, first saw me at one of my advice surgeries in February. He lives very modestly in a small flat at The Beeches in Morden. Mr. Aranda is not a profligate manhe works hard and he wants the best for his family. He started a small business cleaning carpets, because he wanted to get on. He speaks very little English, and I have been dealing with him mainly through his daughter. When he came to my surgery, he had stomach cancer and was very poorly. He was not recovering as fast as expected and he was clearly under stress.
	Through Mr. Aranda's daughter, I found out that before his illness, he had taken out a couple of loans with his bankBarclays. He had been a good customer of Barclays for many years, and he went to his local branch believing that it would give him a good deal. Before I go any further, I should confess that I am not usually the greatest expert on financial small print. I understand that there may be in the not-too-distant future a vacancy for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to reassure the House that I will not be applying for any such vacancy. I may struggle to decipher the small print of financial contracts, but at least I understand English. Mr Aranda does not understand English very well. Barclays sold Mr. Aranda his loans in English, and it also sold him two insurance policies to cover him in case of illness. Those policies were with Barclays Insurance Dublin.
	It is not clear whether Mr. Aranda would have obtained a better deal elsewhere on his loan, or whether he should have obtained his insurance with another company. It is not even clear whether the loan depended on buying insurance from Barclays in Dublin, or whether Mr. Aranda believed that he had to buy his insurance from Barclays. Nor is it clear whether Mr. Aranda should have been advised about insurance that covered all his financial commitments, including his overdraft and credit cards. It is clear, however, that Mr. Aranda was sold Barclays products in a language he barely understands, with small print that even native English speakers find confusing, by a member of staff who was under pressure to maximise sales.
	Barclays has form when it comes to selling unnecessary financial products to confused customers. In March, the BBC broadcast the results of a nine- month investigation into its sales techniques. An undercover investigator was told by a bank trainer that he loved receiving calls from customers complaining about bank charges. He said:
	They'd phone up, start crying and blaming you and telling you their kids are going to starve. And I'd be like, 'I don't know youI don't care. I was just thinking, 'you're not getting it back.' I was a right git.
	The investigator revealed that her trainer, whom Barclays had chosen to teach the bank's new staff how to behave to customers, said:
	I hate it when they say the customer is always right. It's just ridiculous. Someone was stoned when they made up that policy.
	The reporter said that a
	cynical attitude to salesand to customerspermeated every aspect of my work with the bank.
	After her experience of working for Barclays, she added:
	Barclays, like most banks, has a system of targets and bonuses to encourage its staff to sell. I saw the effects of the ruthless target-driven environment. In just four weeks in my branch, I saw one of my colleagues break down in tears because of the pressure to sell and I heard about another from a different branch being suspended, accused of a series of misdemeanours...Mis-selling seemed to be rife.
	Naturally, Barclays denied the contents of the documentary, but I can well imagine how confused Mr. Aranda may have been when he was sold his loans and insurance policies. He had a current account with Barclays, an overdraft with Barclays, and a Barclaycard credit card with Barclays. I should have thought that the best thing would have been to get an insurance policy that covered those high interest products, but that is not what happened.
	Leaving aside the question whether Mr. Aranda was mis-sold financial products, once he became ill, surely the insurance policy would simply pay out and his financial concerns would be behind him. Unfortunately, when Mr. Aranda was taken ill that was not his experience at all. Mr. Aranda was ill for some time before the specialists confirmed that it was cancer. In order to find out what was wrong with him, he had to undergo some very invasive and distressing procedures. He was finally diagnosed with stomach cancer, and ultimately underwent major surgery in September last year. But he had been struggling with work for much longer than that. He became reliant on means-tested benefits, and had been in financial difficulties from as early as January 2006.
	Instead of making things easy for Mr. Aranda when he got into financial difficulties, Barclays imposed onerous conditions on its policies. It refused to pay out unless he provided several medical certificates a month. These cost 80 and more for every month, and the cost of the certificates was not covered as part of his insurance. Barclays simply expected someone suffering from cancer and dependent on benefits to shell out 80 a month to get what he was owed. That was equivalent to one week's income per month.
	Barclays is not the only villain of the piece. I shall use this opportunity to highlight the activities of Morden Hall GP practice. I am very concerned that GPs, who have been given extremely generous new contracts under the Government, are continuing to levy unfair charges on their patients. Morden Hall GP practice was charging Mr. Aranda 20 for each of the medical certificates, no matter how often they were required, and no matter what the real cost of writing them. Each certificate would have taken just a few minutes to write, yet the charge was 20 each time.
	When the public affairs industry spotted that I was holding a debate on banks, I received several calls asking whether I was going to raise the issue of excessive charges for writing simple administrative letters. Well, I am, and I hope that the House will send out a message tonight to GPs that MPs are angry about the way they charge patients. The practice should cease. GPs should not charge people like Mr. Aranda for certificates. They should not charge MPs like me for correspondence when we write on behalf of our constituents. They are very well paid, and that is part of the service that we expect. However, that is a debate for another occasion.
	Mr. Aranda was struggling to get a payout from Barclays and struggling to pay for all his medical certificates when he came to see me in February 2007. He wanted me to see what I could do to make things a little easier. He also revealed some extremely disturbing practices by Barclays. He first attempted to claim his insurance in March 2006. Barclays admits that the claim was delayed, although it blames this on the GPs. However, his insurance did not cover all his commitments, and he used the payments that he did receive just to get by, or to keep his overdraft down.
	Throughout 2006, Mr. Aranda started to get more and more threatening phone calls from the Barclays' collections team. Even Barclays admits that it instigated 34 phone calls to Mr. Aranda. He says he was telephoned more often than that. Indeed, he claims that some of the calls were at 8 o'clock in the morning, even at the weekend. Not surprisingly these threatening phone calls demanding repayment were not good for Mr. Aranda's health. His consultant, Mr. Allum of the Royal Marsden, has written to me, stating that he suspects that the calls were
	contributing to a relatively slow recovery which Mr. Aranda is experiencing.
	He added:
	I would stress that the financial pressures under which he is living . . . will contribute adversely to his recovery.
	So I decided to take up Mr. Aranda's case. I put him in touch with a financial expert from the citizens advice bureau, thanks to the help of the Wimbledon Guild of Social Welfare, and I wrote to Barclays, asking it to deal with Mr. Aranda compassionately. Normally, when I write to such organisations, I expect matters to be dealt with in good time and fairly. In total, I have written eight letters to Barclays and four letters to Barclays Insurance in Dublin, and the issue is still not resolved. At first, Barclays Dublin refused to answer me, because I had not completed the correct consent forms. I wrote back with a copy of the statutory instrument that showed that that was not required from MPs. Some of the answers that I received were confusing and unclear, so I wrote asking to meet somebody to discuss the case. Barclays refused. A customer relations manager said:
	I understand you have requested a meeting with ourselves at Barclays on a number of occasions to try and bring matters to a resolution, however, to date we have not arranged for this to take place. Having reviewed Mr Aranda's case, I do not believe there is any benefit in us holding a meeting at this present time. Regrettably, this is not a matter which can be resolved within a meeting.
	I felt that that was a deeply unsatisfactory response, and phoned Barclays. I was sent from pillar to post. I still have dreams about the music that was played while I was kept on hold.
	I phoned the chief executive. I did not expect that he would answer my call, but I did think that somebody in his outer office might have the courtesy to speak to me. No; I was referred to a polite young woman who worked in the call centre. She could not answer my questionsthere is no way in which she could have done soso I wrote to the chief executive to say that if no representatives would meet me, I had no choice but to take the company's behaviour to the Floor of the House.
	I had no reply, so I was true to my word. I requested an Adjournment debate, and I still had no reply. The debate was granted, and its title was published. Still I had no reply. Barclays' competitors contacted me to ask whether they could help, but there was still no reply from Barclays. Yesterday, however, the British Bankers Association told Barclays what everyone else already knewthat I was going to complain about its conduct in the House. Finally, Barclays wanted to speak with me.
	If anyone says that being an MP cannot achieve anything, nobody should believe them. After 10 years as a Member of Parliament, I am privileged to tell the House that I have finally received the supreme accoladea phone call from Barclays. I was called by Katherine French, the customer services director, and Wendy Deller, the public affairs director. Then, last eveningit was like several buses arriving at onceI received a third call, from Gary Hoffman, the group vice-chairman of Barclays. They were all obviously concerned about the publicity that this debate might generate, but while they were very interested in me and the damage that I might cause, they did not seem very interested in Mr. Aranda. They did not once ask me how he was or whether he was finally recovering. No, they were more concerned about me and the damage I could do than about their customer. They tried to convince me that such cases did not usually happen and that they normally deal with MPs better. They said that the letters to me should have been drafted by someone more senior, and apologised for the tone of their letters to me and to Mr. Aranda, although I could not get an apology for their contents. More to the point, I did not get an apology for the threatening phone calls that he had received at all times of the day and night. They did not apologise for worrying a man suffering from cancer to distraction with their harassment. They claimed that the poor quality of the letters was an exception to their usual rule. However, if they had been genuinely concerned about the welfare of their customer, I might have believed them. But that never happened.
	I hope that this debate has helped raise the issue of potential mis-selling by banks, and Barclays in particular. I hope that it has highlighted the techniques that Barclays uses when its customers become ill and are unable to maintain payments on their loans, even when they have insurance policies with their bank. I hope that it has demonstrated the difficulty that such people encounter in squeezing any money out of their insurance company, Barclays Insurance Dublin. I hope that it shows the low priority that such banks give to customer services when things go wrong.
	If banks such as Barclays refuse to deal with customers as ill as Mr. Aranda with any degree of humanity, I hope that the Government will call the banks in and remind them of their responsibilities. If further regulation is required to instil even a smidgeon of kindness into their activities, I hope that the Government will consider imposing it on Barclays. If Barclays can afford to pay 22 million to just one of its executives out of its profits of 7 billion, it can afford to pay just a little respect to my constituents.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to put this case forward.

Edward Balls: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) both on securing this debate and on her persistence and tenacity in pursuing the interests of her constituent. That is clearly a tribute to her efforts, as well as a model and a lesson on which other Members of Parliament may want to draw in understanding how to deal with situations where it feels as though bureaucracy has put up a brick wall.
	On behalf of all other Members in the House, I join my hon. Friend in expressing my great regret at the stress and severe illnesses that her constituent has suffered and send him our best wishes.
	My hon. Friend said that it often feels as though one waits a long time for a bus and then three arrive at once. I, too, have been contacted on this issue by senior figures at Barclays. I will return to the fourth bus in a moment.
	Before I do so, let me respond more broadly to the points that my hon. Friend made. As she said, she is not only raising the particular case of her constituent but wanting wider lessons to be drawn from it. I agree with her on two points. First, banks play an important role in our economy. Having a strong and efficient banking sector is necessary for the effective working of the national and, indeed, the global economy. I know from my experience that Barclays plays an important role globally in our economy. Secondly, banks play an integral role in our society and have important responsibilities as institutions, and as an industry, in ensuring not only that all consumers get a fair deal but that the most vulnerable members of society are properly supported and protected.
	Over the past year, one of my responsibilities at the Treasury has been to work with the banks to try to reduce the number of individuals in our society who are disadvantaged because they do not have access to mainstream banking services such as a bank account, to ensure that banks play the role that they should in helping to get advice to people about financial products and services, and to ensure that when individuals get into financial distress banks recognise their responsibility to support them. One of the proposals that the Treasury has made to the review of the banking code that is being undertaken by an independent reviewer is aimed at ensuring that the code contains proper procedures, expectations and obligations as to how all individuals who get into financial distress should be supported. I hope that we will be able to make progress in that area so that the problems that my hon. Friend discussed can be prevented in future.
	As my hon. Friend will know, it is difficult for me, as a Minister, to comment on the individual specifics of a case. Let me explain why. One of the reforms that the Government introduced was the setting up of the Financial Services Authority and the creation of a single financial ombudsman scheme within the framework provided by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We have tried to ensure that regulatory oversight of often complex financial products is performed properly and with the needs of consumers firmly in mind, so that consumers are treated fairly but regulatory and compensatory bodies are in place for when things go wrong. It is vital that the Financial Ombudsman Service is, and is seen to be, independent of Government so that it can deal with complaints against financial services firms and provide a safety net for consumers. Its credibility, authority and value to consumers would be undermined if we started to intervene, case by case, in individual cases. That is why I do not want to comment in detail on the merits of the particular case that my hon. Friend raises, although I would say that any constituent of hers can always go to the FOS if they believe that they have been badly advised or treated unfairly. She might want to consider that further.
	My hon. Friend also raised several wider issues based on the specific case, and I will comment on them. First, she referred to payment protection insurance, specifically the selling of such products. Payment protection insurance typically protects a borrower's ability to maintain credit repayments in the event of becoming unable to do so owing to, for example, accident, sickness or unemployment. It can provide valuable protection when people are at their most vulnerable, and the Government recognise its potential value, if sold properly.
	That, however, has clearly not always been the case, and the Government are fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the suitability of those products for some individuals. We are closely monitoring the work of the Competition Commission and the FSA on that. We fully support efforts to improve consumer protection and raise selling standards.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend raised PPI selling to consumers who do not understand the policy fully because they do not have a good grasp of English. There are no specific FSA rules to deal with that. However, under the umbrella of treating customers fairly, the FSA requires firms to disclose sufficient information to consumers to allow them to make an informed decision about the product they are purchasing. Current FSA work is testing industry progress in improving selling standards. I shall ensure that it specifically examines the issue that my hon. Friend raises about language and comprehension as part of its work. After the debate, I will write to the chairman of the FSA to alert him to my hon. Friend's concerns.
	With an off-the-shelf purchase such as PPI, it would be impractical for firms to provide individual information. If customers want more specific or tailored information, they should clearly seek appropriate advice. I repeat that I will raise the specific issue to which my hon. Friend referred with the FSA.
	My hon. Friend also raised the high cost of complying with insurers' requests for medical information. As she knows, the way in which claims are tackled will form part of the terms and conditions between the insurer and the person buying the insurance. For PPI polices, the insurer will require the policyholder to provide evidence of any illness or unemployment. For illness, the insurer is likely to require a medical certificate that will justify the claim. That may be at the cost of the policyholder, depending on the specific insurance contract that is being sold. I understand that Barclays requires the policyholder to provide and pay for any proof that is required, although if it asks the policyholder to undergo a medical examination, it will pay the fee. I am told that that is not out of line with market practice. It is important that that is clearly stated in the policy terms and conditions.
	As my hon. Friend said, however, the key issue is whether the terms and conditions are properly understood and explained at the time. Although I do not comment on the specific case that she raised, a general problem in the PPI market is that, too often, the policy has not been properly explained. It has therefore not been properly comprehended.
	My hon. Friend raised wider points about the role of GPs. Commenting on that would take us outside the terms of the Adjournment debate and my role as a Minister. However, as a colleague and fellow Member of Parliament, I say that the sort of examples that she gave cause meand probably all of ussome concern. The danger that the most vulnerable people in our society are not getting the support that they need because they cannot find the sort of sum that she mentioned is genuinely worrying.
	Let me deal with the conduct of Barclays. My hon. Friend raised the wider issues that the BBC's Whistleblower programme covered. I stress that the Government and the regulators are taking the allegations in the programme seriously. The Banking Code Standards Board and the Financial Services Authority are looking into some of the issues that came out of the programme. For example, the Banking Code Standards Board is looking at the upgrading of current accounts, and later this year the FSA will carry out work on information security, which will include staff vetting for working in a bank. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the Whistleblower case, but, as I said, we take these issues very seriously indeed.
	Finally, let me return to the conduct of Barclays in this case. It is not right for me to comment on the individual complaint and fetter the discretion of the independent financial ombudsman, but, like my hon. Friend, I have had some communication with Barclays, which contacted my office today. It might help my hon. Friend if I read out the position as summarised by Barclays bank to me. It says:
	Barclays views the prompt and fair handling of complaints as of the highest priority, whether they come from a Member of Parliament or not. Clearly, on this occasion, which we view as an exceptional case, we fell well short of the standards to which we aspire. We have apologised unreservedly to Ms McDonagh for any failings in our handling of this case, and offered to meet her with a senior director to resolve any outstanding issues. We can only express our deepest regret to Ms McDonagh, and her constituent, that she has had to go to these lengths in this case.
	It is not for me to comment on this statement of Barclays. However, it has made very clear its regret for falling short of the standards to which it aspires. If has offered to meet my hon. Friend to resolve any outstanding issues, and it has expressed its deepest regret that she has had to go to these lengths.
	I think that if the outstanding issues can be resolved, my hon. Friend's constituent will be very pleased that she has been willing to go to such lengths to see proper treatment of this problem. I commend my hon. Friend for the action she has taken, for the efforts she has made and for bringing the case to the House's attention, so that we can draw any wider lessons and ensure, where we can, that we avoid a repetition of these unfortunate incidents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.